Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Dawkins & Krauss's Greatest Hits: The "Something" Of "Nothing".

It seems that this is what modern atheism has been reduced to...a rambling potpourri of "NOTHING"-LOL



  1. To be fair, this video was the edited version and so his responses as to why he says what he says were edited out. This is the whole debate if interested

    What I fail to understand, however, among fundamentalist Christians and Muslims that deny Big Bang Cosmology, an old earth, the theory of evolution by natural selection or even neuroscience (because it conflicts with the idea of libertarian free will or the idea of a soul) is that even if all those things were shown to be wrong tomorrow, how would it verify biblical creationism or the quran's version of creationism?

    Because that would be a false dichotomy. If the theory of the Big Bang is wrong, that doesn't prove biblical creationism by default as if thats the only other option. One would have to first eliminate all other scientific possibilities and any other account of creation, religious or otherwise. For instance, if I say that the earth was created when Aladdin made a wish to a magic genie, you would have to prove that it never happened. Which would be impossible by the way. Even if you find my belief ridiculous, that doesn't mean it's false, especially if the belief is a faith based one. And all faith based claims are equal, because no objective measure to see which faith claim is correct or incorrect.

    The way to get biblical creationism accepted by everyone outside of those that take the bible literally, is to produce empirical evidence which can be tested and examined by anyone for biblical creationism (or Quranic creationism,etc.).

    1. What's up FM?

      First, we are not arguing Islamic creationism. That is not my territory. Secondly we are not even arguing Biblical creationism. What we are doing is examining the ridiculous suppositions of Dawkins and some atheists on the issue of what "nothing" is...

      As stated in the video, and even in the longer version you post, Dawkins believes that there are various states of "nothing" which in turn must be "something". there is no other scientific field of study, based on what you hoist as reliable, empiricism, that would hold that 'nothing' IS something and still try to get away with saying that it is really nothing...

      So the proposition that he supposes is no MORE than a 'faith' proposition. It is not based on 'evidence' as most rational people understand evidence.

      So far as 'all faith claims are equal', that is ridiculous. There are vast differences between faith claims and atheists who have dared to challenge them have readily come to that conclusion. The faith claim of Islam is vastly different than the faith claim of Christianity, so says atheist Bill Maher... I don't mind disagreement, but inaccuracies like that are simply delusional. That may be what you want folk to believe, but those are silly propositions.

      Christian faith is rooted in evidence! There IS evidence of biological cellular information, cosmology, teleology, archaeology, literary evidence, moral evidence and the scientific evidence that life does not arise from non life and that complex biological systems do not arise from chaos and purely undirected processes. Atheists like to replace God with 'natural selection" stating that it is the basis for all life, but even that cannot start itself, and cannot deliver the information to itself necessary for that to the whole house of materialism is about the greatest faith proposition that one could ever hear or experience, only it has no evidence to support it.

      Now, THAT's the truth!

  2. Not being a scientist I am unqualified to discuss the details of big bang cosmology or the theory of evolution. I have to ask though, what is the empirical evidence of biblical creationism, why hasn't it been presented to the wider scientific community. I also would question why does nearly every scientist in the world accept evolution if it wasn't accurate.

    I'm not too sure, but I have heard that nothing in physics is different from our everyday use of the word.

    As far as my statement on faith claims being equal I say that because everyone who subscribes to any given religion views it as absolute truth. Truth that is not to be questioned. A claim based on faith is usually that way because no evidence supports it or at least not any to make it a fact of reality. If there was then everyone would agree on what religion is the right one.

    1. First, many scientists do NOT accept evolution. There are a growing number of scientists who reject it. Secondly, even if the "majority" (if there was one) affirmed something, it still can certainly be wrong. Have you heard of cholesterol in foods lately??? Then doesn't atheism make its living claiming that the world "majority" who believe in some sort of theism, is wrong???

      So those standards cannot be the standard wherebv the truth of an argument rises or falls.

      What is the empirical evidence for creation and ultimately God?

      I am not sure, in fact I am confident that I do not need empirical evidence of something to prove its existence. Example, first principles, the laws of logic, are not empirical, neither can they be proven, but they exist! To deny this is to deny reality.

      Feelings and emotions. These things cannot be proven by empirical evidence, but they exist. Some call these abstract objects. Even so they cannot be proven. In addition such things are not necessarily a product of matter or material existence or even biological life. However they exist.

      So I would say that empirical evidence is simply one line of evidence for the existence of anything, but not necessarily the only line of evidence. I would agree that there is a certain sense of reliability and regularity suggested by it, but there are things that exists that are not within the realm of regularity.

      To the point, to demand creationists or theists to provide evidence that fits a category of evidence is simply the wrong question or requirement. I would say that a much more objective approach would be to say, what evidence exists for a theistic creation and follow that evidence where it leads. Now isn't THAT the true scientific approach?

  3. I am asking what evidence exists for theistic creation.

    Now this is just my experience and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but in talking to people who reject evolution or big bang cosmology, an old earth or dinosaurs going extinct millions of years ago, there always is some underlying religious motive in denying the science.

    In other words, it really wouldn't matter what scientific explanation is given it would be rejected if the explanation didn't validate the believers version of scripture. I watched the debate between bill nye and Ken ham, I don't know if you are familiar with him he runs the creation museum in Kentucky. At the end of the debate, both were asked by the moderator what could change their minds.

    I found it interesting when Bill Nye gave specific details as to what could change his mind towards evolution. But when it got to Ken Ham, he admitted that nothing could change his mind towards biblical creationism. In essencagaiitrefuses to consider any evidence that supports evolution or big bang cosmology if it wont agree with what he religiously believes to be true. He accepts the scientific consensus on electromagnetism or relativity, so why wont he accept it for a 4.5 billion year old earth?

    So it seems that all arguments against the big bang or evolution is religion masquerading as science. If biblical creationism is an article of the faith which must simply be believed, no questions asked, apologist should just admit it.

    However, if they want to go beyond that and have it accepted as science, they must play by the rules of science. Which means that they must make testable predictions concerning creationism and they have to be willing to have them proved wrong if it comes to that. If it's something that can't be proved wrong no matter what, at that point its just religion.

    Talk is a good site which thoroughly describes all of the evidence of evolutionary biology, complete with pictorial diagrams and answers every question and objections one may have. Now if one can disregard all of that evidence without explaining thoroughly and in detail how all of it is wrong, I would have to suspect some sort of bias against it.

    Evolution and big bang aside, would you be willing to accept any scientific explanation for our origins which contradicts a literal reading of the Genisis account?

    1. Well, that is where the fault in the argument lies. You believe that the only Christian view is a "literal reading" of the Genesis account, as you say above. The assumption that the only Christian belief must align with a YEC interpretation is not warranted.

      First, there is not time stamp of when God created and when he created the earth itself. Was Genesis 1:1 only aligning itself with the creation of the earth, or was it aligned with the creation of all things? Does the scripture distinguish the difference or is it intended to distinguish the difference. These are debates within Christianity certainly, however to have a position either way on these and against the fundamentalist traditions does not run contrary to science. You simply assume that it does.

      Then evolutionary biology and the study of creation are two different things. For one, I would not believe, as there is no evidence, that life proceeds from non-life. Material matter does not and never will produces biological life. So there is no evidence, as far as I can see, that will make any rational person believe that. Then, to take that further, there is evidence of micro-evolution, or change within species or adaptation. No christian argues against that. We argue against the non-evidential assumptions of macro-evolution or the evolution of one species into another species. No matter how many variations of fruit flies that exist, they are always fruit flies. They don't turn into mosquitoes, mice, cats or bats.

      So far as big bang cosmology, it is more in line with biblical creation than the suggestions of science. This is why Dawkins must believe that the "nothing" of the Big Bang MUST be "something" because even in his paradigm of materialistic creation he understands that something cannot come from nothing. that there must be material substance that produces substance. So he and other materialists classify the types of nothing, and in doing that they suggest and even admit that something existed prior to the big bang. they just don't know what.

      So when you ask what evidence would make you believe accept scientific explanations for creation, that is not a fair or a good question. In as far as it is science, science has answered many good thing regarding the creation of the world and man. It has done what its founders set out to do in many instances, DISCOVER the handyworks of God. The problem is the assumptions and interpretations of many scientists that there is no God when they are looking at evidence for him in many cases. Science cannot make such conclusions.

    2. I'm asking for specific ways science has verified biblical creationism and biblical creationism only. Such as specific evidence that man was made by the will of a specific deity.

      Im also aware of old earth creationism, its just that young earth creationism is the generally believed form of creationism.

      But I think you have an unfair critique of science. Science never says there is no god, it simply says a god is not needed to explain anything. Number 1, how would they know which god? They can't arbitrarily assume its the god of fundamentalist Christianity anymore than they can assume its Allah or a magic genie. How could they possibly verify that?

      Its true many scientists are atheist, but none have ever said science proves no god, any god, doesn't exist whether it be Allah, Zeus, Poiseiden, or Jesus.

      However I'm confused as to your position. Are you saying science is generally correct, except that there was a god behind evolution and the big bang? Or are you saying you believe the literal interpretation of Genisis is the truth?

      And if you believe the latter what scientific evidence points to specifically the biblical creation story being the most likely occurrence?

    3. Also, I always hear science accused of being materialistic, but in order for science to work, it has to deal with things that are testable. So if a theist wants their god to be acknowledged by science, you have to give specific ways to test him in a way which would yield unambiguous results of correct or incorrect. See Elijah and the priest of Baal for further details.

      Anyone can assert that the god they believe in created everything. But as I said before, if you want your idea to be accepted by science, you must play by the rules of science.

      In science, things aren't just believed, they are demonstrated before being accepted as scientific fact. And even then, its still subject to being revised or overturned if new evidence comes along.

      Creationist on the other hand, want the literal account of biblical creation to be accepted as scientific fact, yet want to bypass the scientific method. They also want that idea to be accepted as scientific fact without question and as something which can never be questioned and only believed.

      Answers in Genisis has as part of their statement of faith that no evidence which contradicts the scriptural record will be considered (I'm paraphrasing). The institute of creation research has a similar statement of faith. So what that says is that it really doesn't matter if its evolution or any other scientific explanation, if it doesn't agree with their religion, they will ignore it and any evidence which supports it. That's pseudoscience at best, dogma at worst.

      There is no scientific organization anywhere, which states that no evidence can contradict evolution, Charles Darwin is infallible, or the Origin of Species is inerrant.

    4. You said: "Science never says there is no god, it simply says a god is not needed to explain anything."

      Modern science is presented as metaphysical naturalism that not only says that God is not needed, but goes further to say that there is no God. Ayheist Stephen Hawking, the leading astrophysicist in the world, says so clearly:

      In addition, it is disingenuous to tell Christians that they must interpret the bible in such a way that bolsters your case. Fundamentalism is on one brand of Christianity and literalism is on one method of reading and studying the bible. The bible is meant to be taken literally where literalism is warranted. Example, when scripture says in Ps. 91:4(a) "He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust:" Are we to believe that God is some sort of big bird? Clearly that is an anthropomorphism, not a literal description of God. So context is the scripture is the number one consideration of the text.

      Same thing with biblical creation. The biblical account does not set out to give a scientific overview of how God did anything. The account does not give a time frame in which God does anything either. He does not say "6,000 to 10,000 years ago, God created"...Where is that at and how do you get to that point? Because some interpret it that way? Well, plenty of others do not. The problem is that you, like most atheists, believe that fundamentalism is the only way that the bible can be interpreted and you need it to be that way in order to maintain your critique and boost your antisupernatural bias.

      The bible delivers statements of fact are in line with what we know to be true and what science has discovered. From surgery, seeing God putting a man to sleep, before removing something from his body, to eating routines and restriction that dietitians affirm help the body function properly, everything that we see the bible endorsing along these lines is beneficial.

      Further, we KNOW that there is a cause and effect to everything. We KNOW that information, especially the information necessary to both begin the universe and to begin life cannot start itself, order itself or cause itself. To believe those things simply come about with no cause or out of the air (which also could not exist) are ridiculous notions and simply defies every bit of science that you agree with.

      To retrack, science agrees that MANY things exist which cannot be empirically proven. Mind, will, intellect, desire, feelings, emotions, thoughts, memories and the list goes on and on, cannot be empirically proven. There is no test tube that contains thoughts or emotions. If so show me where it is or inject them into another's brain and let's see what happens. The laws of logic are not subject to the testing that you have been brainwashed into believing that is a prerequisite for the truth or reality of things. In fact, if anything science proves that what we can empirically verify with the sense can be certainly wrong.

      I've got news for you. A flat earth was not the result of religious teaching or faith. A flat earth was the result of observation or sight. Sight, one of the 5 senses was not adequate to determine the truth of the shape of the earth now was it? If truth is only confirmed by the sense, then one can easily be deceived.

      To claim "science of the gaps" is another ridiculous postulate that you are willing to embrace, yet when a Christian does this, you laugh to scorn...I simply laugh the atheist to scorn as well because not believing in God does not add a level of acceptance to that sort of strategy.

    5. I still don't know where you stand as far as creationism is concerned, but I'll take a shot in the dark and say you believe the book of Genises to be literal truth. Also, I know that the bible is interpreted many ways, it's just that fundamentalist seem to be the only one's that have a problem with science when it contradicts their religious beliefs.

      I understand why this is so, because many people tend to have emotional attatchments to dearly held religious beliefs. So if one's entire worldview is based upon the bible being inerrant, then science like evolution goes beyond just everyday science facts like say the theory of gravity. Evolution, big bang cosmology,etc is an attack upon one's dearly held beliefs which one bases their life around. Thats why fundamentalist don't necessarily attack all science, just the bit which threatens their worldview.

      This also is a good article of why we tend to deny science when it conflicts with a deeply held religious (or political) belief

      Personally I trust scientist to do my science, like I trust a mechanic to tell me how my engine runs. So if Stephen Hawking has something to say about physics, I listen, especially when he has the support of his peers. I just had work done on my car and I took it to 3 mechanics who said the same thing. The reason I trusted them is the same reason I trust scientist when it comes to science. It's because their opinions are based on knowledge and study of their particular field. It is not based on their arbitrary personal opinion or what they want to be true.

      The following is resources for evidence which supports the big bang:

      The following is for the theory of evolution:

      Scientists that support theory of evolution:

      In conclusion, the evidence for evolution and big bang cosmology is overwhelming. In order not to accept it, you have to already hold the conclusion in your head that its false and then look for ways to prop up your pre determined conclusion. Virtually every reputable scientist in the world supports it.

      If you can find me ANY comparable evidence for biblical creationism that is accepted by mainstream science, I would be more than happy to seriously read it and consider it.

    6. As I said previously and I will repost again:

      "Same thing with biblical creation. The biblical account does not set out to give a scientific overview of how God did anything. The account does not give a time frame in which God does anything either. He does not say "6,000 to 10,000 years ago, God created"...Where is that at and how do you get to that point? Because some interpret it that way? Well, plenty of others do not. The problem is that you, like most atheists, believe that fundamentalism is the only way that the bible can be interpreted and you need it to be that way in order to maintain your critique and boost your antisupernatural bias.

      Yes I certainly believe the bible, but how is it bound by your assertions? So far as listings of information, there is quite a bit to list regarding Theistic origins as well. Here is one:

      In this video you will hear the scientists SPEAK for themselves that the biblical model is unchallenged by the metaphysical naturalist worldview. The question was in part, "is biblical creation a viable model of origins..."?

      The simple answer is YES. It is silly to say that the vast amounts of information necessary to even begin a big bang started and ordered itself. ARE YOU SERIOUS in believing that?

      The Christian worldview BEST suits the evidence! INTERESTINGLY you SKIP over everything that neither you or your associates can't even begin to address in a metaphysical naturalist worldview and 'PRETEND" that you are open to looking at evidence....

      Sir, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

      Sorry to say it, but it's truth.

      Rather than admit that empiricism fails to account for much of reality, including real objects such as thoughts, will, and intellect that exist without empirical basis for measurement, and that there are vast things that exist which cannot be measured, you PRETEND that empiricism is the only way that knowledge exists in the material world. That is RIDICULOUS!

      Yet you don't even make an effort to address it...What's wrong? Those facts don't fit what you "believe"?

      In addition you can't argue what I haven't set forth. I haven't seen a scientific discovery yet that contradicts what I believe. the fossils of evolution are fully formed and developed, not transitions and any scientist worth his salt will admit that. In absence of any record to the contrary, Darwinian evolution is about the worst of the worst of any evolutionary theory.

      So I would say that if anyone is PRETENDING, it is the metaphysical naturalists, who cannot account for any reason that anything exists at all. Atheist Lawrence Krauss at least admits as much when we say that "there is no reason that anything should exist!" He is absolutely right. He is fully aware that a self starting universe is impossible if all the laws of physics are deterministic.

      So get real, stop lieing and wasting time supporting a failed theory and all the other garbage that goes with it.


    Heres the whole debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Notice Ken Ham gives no data for biblical creation, all he does is make non sequitirs (saying that christians can do science too, as if someone has said different), name drop (here is this guy who made this invention and he's a creationist, thus implying that therefore creationism is true), redefine terms (historical science vs observational science) and somehow he never gets around to presenting the unbiased experiments, the falsifiable predictions which creationism would make, how they went about testing it, the peer reviewed papers.

    All I say is that biblical creationist should drop the scientific pretense, as if they only care about objective scientific fact and only disagree with evolution on strictly scientific terms. They should admit that biblical creationism is an article of the faith which just has to be believed.

  5. As I was watching the Ham, Nye debate which viewed here spends much more time answering and addressing technical issues:

    Nye was asked the questions I've asked FM such as "how did consciousness come from matter?" at to which Nye answers at 2:00.55 "I don't know. This is a great mystery." Now, there is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know" Many things about God we don't know. But the problem is that the biblical explanation of consciousness has already been delivered. God GAVE life, breathing into man which he had formed. (Gen.2:7) This is what Ham said in response, but I will take it a little further...There is NOTHING in a materialistic paradigm, based on laws of regularity that allows consciousness upon matter and material. This by itself, as Nye knows, suggests STRONGLY that whatever the cause of consciousness must be SUPERNATURAL or outside of the natural realm.

    If you could imagine a process in which a rock, for let's say trillions of years, could gain one atom or particle of consciousness, I would believe that you are reciting the biggest fantasy ever known to man and mankind,.

    Nye asserts that Noah could not have made a viable ark, because modern ark builders with all of our technology could not make a ship that would work and that all the animals were simply too much, were carnivores and Noah didn't have enough persons. First, who said that the animals were full grown animals? So securing cubs, kittens, and animals that were young and in the stage of development would not have taken much space since they were only together for less than 2 to 3 months time. In addition, Nye acts as if he has never heard or see the Egyptian pyramids. What great modern technology facilitates their building and design. Once again, this is with very little supporting records for what and why they were built.

    Ham does an excellent job pointing out the difference between observable and historic science. The assumption that what we observe today has always been that way is an imposition on what evidence that exists. Evidence does not say what has "always" been. The evidence only points out what currently is. Those are the boundaries of science and every scientist knows this. They do science with the ASSUMPTION that things will continue to be as they are.

    Another thing that FM does that Nye does also...he SKIPS OVER and DOES NOT ADDRESS the failure of empiricism to identify, detect immaterial objects such as feelings, thoughts, emotions and will. He doesn't even try to address it in any way. Why? Probably because it is related to consciousness which he admits cannot be explained in a materialistic paradigm.

    He like many of his fellow materialists, mean good. I AGREE we should have plenty of scientists, engineers, doctors etc, but one does not have to lie or promote lies to get people involved. The masses don't have to be deceived by the absurd assertions of metaphysical naturalism.

    1. You keep just asserting that evolution is wrong. I just gave you link after link to evidence supporting it and you just keep saying it's wrong without even attempting to show where the science is wrong. If you just religiously believe it's wrong, thats ok. But at that point you aren't doing science, you have a religious viewpoint.

      Where exactly is the science wrong? What about the evidence strongly supports biblical creationism? What about the evidence suggests that a deity, but no just any deity, the one specifically worshiped by fundamentalist christianity, created the universe in 6 days be just telling things to appear? Where exactly is it, because you keep saying it's there and still haven't shown me. So please point it out to me.

      As I said, just like I pointed out to you evidences for evolution and big bang cosmology and the list of scientific bodies associated with mainstream science that support it, please point out to me the evidence for biblical creationism associated with mainstream science.

    2. FM,

      This is what you do. You bypass the arguments at hand and hoist other points that no one is arguing in effort to overwhelm. Well I am not and will not be overwhelmed, especially by weak arguments. Not that you argue weakly, but what you peddling, NOBODY around here is buying.

      First, you have no clue as to what my point is on evolution and you think that all things evolution Christians are against. That is SILLY and it's even worse that you continue to say it. Here are my views on evolution which have THOROUGHLY been documented on this blog:

      Read that post and about the 6 connected to it that I reference and the over 142 comments where I take on MUCH BETTER than what you can attempt, then argue in the APPROPRIATE forum.

      This post is not about evolution. It is about creation and what "nothing" is as ridiculously posed by your heroes and maybe, just maybe you'll get a clue!

      To recap...Big bang cosmology and evolution are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. PLEASE stop confusing the two and pretending that it's all one argument.

  6. Here is what the scientists have to say about evolution vs creationism

    The problems with Noahs Ark are many:


    Here are some good ones:

    Gathering the Animals

    Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

    Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

    Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
    Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
    Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
    Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.
    Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

    There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

    1. Appealing to some supposed authority who by the way has bias for what you BELIEVE is silly!!! Most materialists fall prey to the 3 assumption fallacy. You certainly do as well:

      Then there is More on kinds and why teh ark was filled with kinds:

      And more on what that means:

      OK, now like you...I've posted some websites...why don't you believe? I'll bet you don;t even read them....

      OOh brother!!!!!

  7. If you won't accept any evidence for evolution or any other science which contradicts a literal reading of the bible, just say so.

    1. You don't DELIVER any evidence which is not in accordance with what we know about God if he created the Universe, earth and all things therein. You objections have been answered and the flaws in your arguments handled STILL have not delivered any reason for consciousness, life, abiogenesis, or WHY there is any existence at all...

      Your answers are wholly inadequate!

  8. Special diets. Many animals, especially insects, require special diets. Koalas, for example, require eucalyptus leaves, and silkworms eat nothing but mulberry leaves. For thousands of plant species (perhaps even most plants), there is at least one animal that eats only that one kind of plant. How did Noah gather all those plants aboard, and where did he put them?

    Other animals are strict carnivores, and some of those specialize on certain kinds of foods, such as small mammals, insects, fish, or aquatic invertebrates. How did Noah determine and provide for all those special diets?

    Ventilation. The ark would need to be well ventilated to disperse the heat, humidity, and waste products (including methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia) from the many thousands of animals which were crowded aboard. Woodmorappe (pp. 37-42) interprets Genesis 6:16 to mean there was an 18-inch opening all around the top, and says that this, with slight breezes, would have been enough to provide adequate ventilation. However, the ark was divided into separate rooms and decks (Gen. 6:14,16). How was fresh air circulated throughout the structure?

    Sanitation. The ungulates alone would have produced tons of manure a day. The waste on the lowest deck at least (and possibly the middle deck) could not simply be pushed overboard, since the deck was below the water line; the waste would have to be carried up a deck or two. Vermicomposting could reduce the rate of waste accumulation, but it requires maintenance of its own. How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?

    1. Did God tell Noah to collect insects? Where is that at? You are FULL OF IT!!!! You present things as fact then argue against them as if someone is even hinting at that...

      God told Noah to place KINDS on the Ark not every species:

      "Was every species on the ark? No! From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, in Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminologica research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy"

      That is found here:

      Now, I've posted another website...DO YOU BELIEVE YET???? (That is how you argue, so I may as well see if it works as you seem to "think" it should)

      So you are worried about the animal diets and think that proves the point and makes your case:

      "Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood."

      And THAT can be found here:

      Along with info on how they breathed and drank and went to the bathroom. As it was rather easy to pipe in plenty of water for clean up as it rained for nearly 40 days yes????

      Now, I've posted another site and some more info...DO YOU BELIEVE YET??? Why not????

  9. I understand why these debates between evolution and creationism can get heated. People normally have emotional attatchment to their faith and it's something they don't want disturbed. But in order to have a productive conversation, both of us must be open minded. What that means is we both must be open to be wrong.

    Now, I've given you resources to links which thoroughly details evolutionary theory and big bang cosmology. I've also provided links to the numerous scientific organizations which support it and video links to actual scientists who give their professional opinions based on their fields of study on the evolution and creationism debate. And you keep pretending like none of it exists and keep repeating "There's no evidence for evolution" even when I'm showing it to you.

    What I'm asking for in return are resources to evidence which supports creationism, which is recognized by mainstream science. I am willing to be wrong.

    If your religious worldview is based on the premise that Genesis CAN'T be wrong as the evolution HAS to be wrong and you won't budge, that gets us nowhere. I understand why because if the Genesis story is wrong, the rest falls like a house of cards. In one of the videos I posted the scientist said that a preacher told her "If Genesis is not literally true, then I can't be sure that Revelations is literally true." I think that sums up the whole debate between evolution and creationism and why fundamentalists of the christian, muslim, and jewish variety tend to get so upset and bothered over it.

    1. And people, especially metaphysical naturalists such as yourself get overly emotional because the lifelessness and non-purpose of your belief is exposed as the fraud that it is!

      I've NEVER said that there's no evidence for evolution. This is one of those things as I said earlier, YOU create and then argue to make yourself feel better for some reason. Most folk I know agree that evolution exists, only not the type of evolution known as macro-evolution where frogs become birds or better yet sharks become deer after developing lungs and so forth...there is NO EVIDENCE of that ever...EITHER OBSERVABLE OR NOT!!!! you persistence is ridiculous!!!!

  10. Also, you want science to recognize the "supernatural", but only your kind of supernatural. Science also doesn't recognize any gods, fairies, or ogres until there is evidence for them. What if science did recognize "god", but by god they meant Allah or Zeus or Thor or a super-powerful genie? What if instead of angels and demons they recognized pixies and leprechauns? That's the problem. You only want your supernatural claims recognized, without evidence, while excluding any and all other supernatural claims.

    So science isn't biased against the christian idea of god anymore than it's biased against the idea of Zeus. If science can just say "Well, we have a completely natural explanation for the big bang, but we'll say that specifically the christian idea of God is responsible, somehow, for it" then why can't they say "Well, we have a natural explanation for thunder, but we'll say that somehow Thor causes thunder"?

    Supernatural claims have to be demonstrated by evidence and no claim gets a free pass.

    1. My supernatural claims align more with reality than your fallacious claims based on your belief and the interpretation of your belief...I call it belief because that's what it PRETEND to rely on evidence, but that is not the case. the evidence can only tell you what is happening now. The Christian world view tells WHY you find what you find now and also tells as Hamm said, what you could expect to find IF God did what he said he would do....

      Metaphysical naturalists can't seem to wrap your head around the thought that long ago, God said the earth was a "circle" (Is. 40:22) when YOU (those like you) thought the earth was flat based on your OBSERVATION!

      You did not understand that that when God told man that the "day" he would eat the fruit that he would surely die, that the process of death, sickness, disease, bacteria and all began a unique process within man effecting his genome. NOW, through research and gene mapping, scientists find what the ago old text already suggested, that something must have occurred in an unobservable with the human eye region of man. We claim that is not only body but also spirit.

      What we BELIEVE aligns more closely with reality than the absolute fantasy you embrace...MEET your relative if you really believe what you believe is true!!!!

      Then if he can overcome that consciousness thing...tell me what he says!!!

  11. Answers in Genesis is not a credible source of information. They already state on their website that they will not accept any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it is contrary to their religious views and it states that any such evidence must be interpreted through a specific worldview. So their credibility is shot and whatever evidence they produce, unless it can be verified by an independent, objective 3rd party, then it is suspect.

    Because if it is real evidence, it can be verified by anyone, not just the "true believers" who have already admitted that they can in no way, shape or form be wrong or will accept anything that implies they are wrong.

    1. You have not delivered ANYTHING that is credible or is a credible source of information. Not because they haven't tried. It's because they have a weird metaphysical naturalist presupposition that is unfulfilling.

      Nye said something in the argument that I took to heart. He wanted Hamm to say that he was SURE that the record he was believing in was true and correct. Well, that is and was another debate as historical reliability of scripture was not in question. What he proved is that scientists can't do history.

      Admittedly, he is not a theologian. However, the problem is, when you begin to say that something is wrong or inauthentic, you SHOULD have studied it's historicity first. Nye is certainly welcome to argue for science as the supreme world view (scientism), but what he and most atheists try to do is PRETEND that all things are equal and that the modern "phone game" is how society's oral historiography was handled.

      There are MOUNTAINS of evidence that debunks many of his questions, concerns and statements before they even proceed out of his mouth. I wish he and others like FM would take time to familiarize themselves with historiography in ANE societies before they insert their feet in their mouths and waste peoples times arguing already refuted and debunked points over and over...

  12. One more thing. As I was thinking today and as Ham said, If I am wrong, what does it matter anyway??? What judge do I have to answer to? In fact, I should seek to advantage myself and find any way to make gain, because it is the "survival of the fittest" and only the weak get took right? Without God there is no moral imperative. There is no reason that I should be anything but self serving.

    Fm will pass away and be forgotten and everything about him will be forgotten. Dawkins, and every one will simply vanish and in about 100 or 200 years noone will say anything about any of us, so what does it matter?

    That is IF you are right!

    I happen to know that is not true. We WILL be judged and every wrong will be made right. Hitler will not receive the reward that materialism offers him of simply annihilation. He will be judged in front of nations. Fm and I will be judged also. For those who don't want God or his presence, their wish will be fulfilled and they will be banished from his presence forever. that's what they want and god is JUST enough to give them what they want. I call it punishment, but it will be their reward. Whereas I and other like me, will be in God's presence and remain for eternity and along the way, have our hearts fulfilled as HE leads us into rescuing individuals for the belief of a slow and never ending death of existence. A purposeless, fantasy created by the minds of men that they call reality....

    Listen, a non-believer is the LAST thing I would be. I have seen the spiritual realm by experience so there is no argument that would make me a non-believer in the reality of a spiritual world that exists as God said it does. these arguments are kindergartenish when viewed in light of what is KNOWN.

    NOW, I've posted sites and given you believe YET????

    1. Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source of information. They have already admitted to a bias and have all but implied that they are willing to lie and fudge the books to arrive at the conclusion they want. That is the only site you posted.

      Now show me a nonreligious, scientific source that verifies their information. I'll save you the trouble of looking. There is none.

      Plus, the bible in Genesis 6:19 says to take 2 of everything onto the ark of all flesh, that would include all 16,000 species of ant.

      Answers in Genesis is reinterpreting information so they can reach what they want to believe.

      You have refuted none of the evidence that points to macro evolution, if you even read it. Nor have you answered any of the questions about Noah's ark. You just listed answers in Genesis, which we both know to be biased.

    2. WRONG again sailor! I reject your assertions. In fact the sites YOU posted are full of anti-religious bias and the more junk you post doesn't make any of them true!. The authors are mostly atheist and have a predisposition against theism in general. I can quote ONE really good site and refute a whole bunch of garbage.

      So your effort to shame them is only something that one should consider the source of. Why do any of them need to lie about information on macroevolution when there is NO macroevolution either in the fossil record or observed?

      As stated, Noah took KINDS not species and he didn't take ants and insects.

      Genesis 6:19- 22 ~ 19- And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20-Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21-And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. 22-Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

      Then "every living thing that creepeth" is NOT a description of ants or insects. IN CONTEXT it is a description of the FLESH and live animals that Noah gathered, by KIND.

      Another example of materialists creating something to argue against that no one is saying.


    3. You said:
      In fact the sites YOU posted are full of anti-religious bias and the more junk you post doesn't make any of them true!.

      My response:
      Show me exactly where the anti-religious bias is? At least 1 of the sites are from a university, how is a university anti-religious?

      Answers in Genesis is a website which falsely represents itself as science, when it is actually religion posing as science. At best, it's pseudoscience.
      In fact, no scientific organization on this Earth recognizes them as having any sort of legitimacy at all. Here is what the scientific community thinks of them. This is from wikipedia
      "The scientific community considers creation science to be pseudoscience which "shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing."[33] Consequently, scientific and scholarly organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society of Canada have issued statements against the teaching of creationism."

      Your "out of context" doesn't fly. For one, kinds are something made up by creationists and second, there is no "in context" except personal opinion, to interpret the Bible. This is shown by the fact that many people interpret the bible in many different ways and each is thoroughly convinced that they have it right. So when the 32,000 denominations of christians agree on how to interpret the bible and which context to take it in, then tell me I'm taking it out of context.

      It plainly says two of every living thing of all flesh. And even if it was just 2 cats to represent the whole cat family, that creates a whole new problem which adds to the unrealisticness of the story. If there were only 2 cats, how did we get the different variety of cats in just 4000 years?

      Once again, here is the evidence for evolution with all the sources cited:

      Here is the evidence from NASA for the Big Bang:

      So, where is the scientific evidence for biblical creationism I.E. the universe created in 6, 24 hour days by the magic or will of a deity, a woman created from a mans rib, plants created before the sun, all plants and animals poofed out of thin air into their current forms? Show me someone, anyone, besides fundamentalist christians who actually think that it actually happened that way?

      You won't because you can't. We both know that no legitimate scientists buys any of that as there is ZERO evidence to support it. It has just as much evidence as the creation myths of any other tribe or religion. Noahs Ark never happened as there is ZERO evidence for it, I defy you to show me any mainstream science that says that it even might have happened.

      Creationists would be much more respected if they'd just admit that their position is a religious position and just stand their ground and say that they will not accept anything contrary to their religion instead of trying to hide their religious bias under the guise of science and pretending that their is no evidence for anything that doesn't support their worldview.

      So don't just tell me the evidence for biblical creationism is "there". Point it out to me and everyone else so we can see for ourselves.

    4. First, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is "pseudoscience". Wickipedia references are a dime a dozen. Then if I were in contention with an alternate view, I would do what they and you to DISCREDIT the alternatives. Calling something or someone names doesn't deal with the information. The information exists from bona-fide scientists that evolution is a failed theory.

      Dr's against evolution:

      ""The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)

      ""I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")

      Do you happen to know who this is? It is the man who INVENTED the falsifiability of scientific theory.

      Evolution, of the sort that you claim, is not factual as you claim. it is a metaphysical naturalistic FAITH:

      ""The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")"

      Here's another. Have you heard of Dr. Fred Hoyle? I have:

      " "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)"

      Even staunch atheists don;t believe in what you say or what your materialistic faith espouses. Heard of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould? I have. He even invented a whole new theory to make that failed mess look good:

      ""The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)

      This is exactly what you do and what the modern metaphysical naturalist does with information. You swallow what you like without critical examination because it bolsters your worldview. And you have the NERVE to call Christians and theists radical and irrational. You are full of it!!!

      ""To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)"

  13. Implications of Noahs Flood:

    I bet Answers in Genesis has an answer for each of these. Somehow, no one else does except the people who say they already believe it to be true and will interpret any evidence or lack thereof so that they can arrive back at their conclusion.

    1. And there's more dissent:

      "Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

      Professor Colin Reeves
      Dept of Mathematical Sciences
      Coventry University

      Here's another:

      As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry -- and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

      Edward Peltzer
      Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
      Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

    2. Here's more:

      Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
      As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast 'computer program' of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require -- or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have -- or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

      Wait a minute...I thought only Answers in Genesis said such things? Univ. Of San Diego, Coventry, Ohio State...What????

      But WAIT...that's not the best thing...there happens to be a 22 page PDF list of those who also dissent from Darwinian evolution that you so gladly accept because of your anti-supernatural bias. Not all of these folk are believers. I believe many of them are not, but they can look at the EVIDENCE and say, you MUST BE KIDDING ME!!!!!

      Click HERE HERE

    3. Here is nearly a 40 page paper from Abby camp on Nye's assertions and refutations of many of his so called facts, and how he changed the question which he certainly did. It is VERY good read.

      Click HERE

  14. Then I guess folk like this have never heard of scientists like the late Dr. Colin Patterson former Sr. Paleontologist at the British Museum.

    "Common ancestry falsified!? The first example Patterson used in leading up to his dramatic conclusion involved data obtained in Ann Arbor only a month earlier on the amino acid sequences for the alpha hemoglobins of a viper, crocodile, and chicken. On the basis of evolutionary theory we "know" that vipers and crocodiles, two reptiles, are much more closely related to each other than either is to a bird which is presumably a much more distant relative. But this evolutionary knowledge turns out to be "anti-knowledge" and the theory an "anti-theory." It is the crocodile and the chicken that show the greatest similarity (1.5%) of their amino acids in common), said Patterson, with the viper and the chicken the next most similar (10.5%), and the two reptiles with the least similarity (5.6%). In this particular example, the evolutionary "prediction is falsified precisely," insisted Patterson.

    An isolated example? No, he continued with several more. An examination of the amino acids in myoglobin shows that crocodiles and lizards share 10.5% while the crocodile and chicken share only 8.5%, a greater similarity for the reptile/reptile pair than for the reptile/bird—except that the lizard/chicken, another reptile/bird pair, is 10.5%, the same percentage as the reptile/reptile pair.

    Patterson then questioned the way data have been manipulated by evolutionists. In describing studies of mitochondrial DNA done on man and various primates, Patterson noted the numbers used for comparison are only produced after evolution is assumed to be true and the computer is told to find a phylogenetic tree. In the case of DNA, Patterson continued, we should expect a 25% match by chance alone (since there are only four possibilities for each position), yet among five presumably closely related species (man, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and gibbon) there was only a 7% match.

    Now, Patterson was certainly a metaphysical naturalist and believed in methodological naturalism, and although he did not jump ship and become a creationist (according to his recant), it can't be denied, that he questioned many of the things that Darwinian evolution and many scientist held so dearly and closely. He was NO HERO for Christianity, but he presented some information to let one know how shaky of a ground that evolutionary theory is on. And it is SHAKY!!!

  15. Ok, why don't I concede that evolution is false. Even though you still have not refuted the 29 evidences for the theory of evolution and you cherry picked the names of those, who Im willing to bet my bottom dollar are creationists, who may disagree, assuming you're quoting them in context.

    Now, once and for all, where is the evidence for biblical creationism? Where is the evidence the universe was made by magic, life was made by magic, a woman came from a rib, a talking snake and magical fruit trees, dinosaurs walking with humans, lions and tigers ever being herbivores? A mystical garden? Where is the undisputable evidence that everyone refuses to acknowledge? You do have it don't you?

    So yes, lets pretend evolution is false and the overwhelming amount of science doesn't agree with it. Where is the evidence for biblical creationism, 900 year old men, a giant ark which strangely has disappeared, rainbows only appearing in the last 4,000 years?

  16. Dr Colin Patterson was deliberately misrepresented by creationist

    So was Karl Popper go to 4.17

    So was Dr L T Moore go to 4.7

    Creationists are good for quote mining

    Dr Reeves is a mathematician so his opinion on evolutionary biology is invalid, especially when it clashes with the professional opinion of the vast majority of those who work in the field of biology.

    As for the petition by the Discovery Institute, it is extremely questionable as most of the signers have no background in fields relevant to evolutionary biology. Furthermore of those that do, they represent less than 1% of those who agree with evolutionary biology. Some were misled into signing it. A review of many of the signers revealed that they object on religious grounds, not scientific grounds, and the Discovery Institute was caught lying about the institutional affiliations of those who signed it. (all of the sources which verify the information in the article is listed at the bottom of the page)

    The National Center for Science Education had this to say about the petition

    The Discovery Institute is a fraud.

    1. Lies the Discovery Institute caught in:

    2. Most of your groups that hoist evolution are FRAUDS!!!!

      The Discovery Institute has done more to promote REAL science than any of the sites you posted. Many secular evolutionists, because they are sinners like you, LIE readily to try to convince folk that they are right. Like the facebook site, Evolution Is A Lie states, some even try to pretend to be Christians:

      Another site, Evolution The Lie, documents many if not all the various lies that evolution and evolutionary scientists have posed over the years to trick and seduce the masses. It even touches on cosmology and why the cosmological lies that maetaphysical naturalists pose simply can't be true.

      Evolution news even exposes the LIE of Darwinian evolution further:

      Man you have to be a rank heretic to accept this mess as the methodological naturalists lay it down hook line and sinker like FM. The more he posts and the more I research, the more sorry I feel for ANYONE who has built their life and understanding on that garbage.

    3. Well I guess the group's that hoist evolution, practically all of mainstream science, are frauds. Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

      Now once again, where is the evidence for a deity creating everything in 6 24 hour days, where is the evidence for plants before the sun, that dinosaurs and man coexisted, of a talking snake, a woman being made from a rib bone, 900 year old men, half human half angel giants, rainbows appearing only 4000 years ago, a giant ark that somehow vanished into thin air, and lions and tigers ever being plant eaters?

      The more you refuse to present evidence for any of the above, the more reasonable it is to assume you have none.

    4. What I believe and the methods and rationale behind it is NOT in question. The failed garbage of Darwinian evolution and the suffering propositions of cosmological science are. The over reaching of unwarranted and unsupported conclusions that there is no God all the while discovering what he did and how he did it are not only absurd, but your persistence is down right SILLY!!!

      Except for the comedy show in reading some of the complete nonsense that you utter, I would't be entertained.

  17. And we certainly can't forget all the frauds and connected bones that evolutionary scientists have posed over the years...enough to choke a horse!

    1. Why are all your sources from creationism websites? Can you provide anything that backs biblical creationism from an unbiased, independent scientific website like say, NASA?

    2. Once and for all, even if evolution were proven wrong tomorrow, it doesn't mean therefore a deity made everything by magic and all the worlds problems stem from a talking snake tricking a naked woman made out of a mans rib bone into eating a piece of fruit from a magical tree.

    3. NONE of your sources are independent...In fact what does that even mean. Are your trying to CONTINUE to deceive the public into believing that science begins with a blank slate and no bias? That is FOOLISHNESS!!! Science BEGINS with a presupposition of naturalism. This is why the study of the world is called methodological naturalism. By scientific methods, which EXCLUDE supernaturalism out of hand with no warrant, they make and draw conclusions.

      Nearly ALL of the sites and information you present is from a secularist and methodological naturalist viewpoint and some even promote atheism. So why the double standard? I guess it's because of the double mind hmm?

      As I said, you do nothing more but add to the list of fraudulent detractors!

    4. BTW...evolution, the type that you believe in where all living things come from a common ancestor, HAS ALREADY been proven wrong millions of times over! There is no question for a truly rational mind over that. So far as cosmology, which is a different topic, as you seem to still think they are one in the same, complexity cannot come from the non ordered universe and you have NO MECHANISM whatsoever to account for the vast amounts of information necessary for anything to begin, not to mention the fact that none of the laws of nature are self starting laws. That is an IMPOSSIBILITY which you and many of your radical comrades don't have nerve enough to admit!

    5. My references come from sites that thoroughly site where and how they got their info? Show exactly how and where they are biased? I have provided answers in Genesis own statement of faith, they admit to bias.

      The doctors you tried to quote, I pointed you to references so you could read for yourself what they had to say in their own words. Yet you still won't acknowledge it.

      I gave you a link to a university website documenting the falsehoods of the discovery institute and a link to a Wikipedia Pg, which lists its sources to show that there list of scientists is fraudulent.

      I also gave a link to a video where the man actually attempts to contact those on the list and gives his results. One of the people who signed the discovery institute s paper was a park ranger. A park ranger. But they represented him as a scientist.

      How are any of those sources biased? Because they contradict a literal reading of Genesis?

    6. The reason why supernaturalism is dismissed is because there's no way to test or verify it. I thought we've been over that?

      And, as I pointed out before, you really don't care about science rejecting the supernatural. I doubt it bothers you that science rejects Allah, Ganesh or magic genies. Those gods are supernatural too, you know?

      You just want science to uncritically accept your supernatural claims and yours only.

    7. So, where again is the evidence for talking snakes, magic trees, rib women, a giant ark that somehow went missing, evidence that all humans came from Noah's 3 sons and their wives, or that a god made the universe by magic or speaking it to poof it into existence? Don't forget about the 900 year old men. Where is the evidence for all the 900 year old guys that were walking around? Or the magic trees and the corresponding magic fruit?

    8. I would love to see your face if the entire scientific community said tomorrow that the theory of evolution is false, the big bang theory is false and that science has known all along the supernatural was responsible. That's right.... Science recognizes the supernatural and that god, whose proper name is Allah created the world exactly as his inerrant holy book, the Quran said he did.

      Somehow, I doubt that would satisfy you.

    9. Questions about Noah's ark

      1. Where did all of the wood to build the ark come from, considering it was in the middle East? How was the wood treated and cured and kept from rotting, as it took 100 years to build?

      2. How did the animals know to trek to the ark?

      3. How did they get to the ark I.e. how did a jaguar from the Americas get to the middle East or a kangaroo from Australia?

      4. How did 8 people care for the animals and find time for anything else? Since creationist count "kinds" (which science doesn't recognize) then the estimate is 16000 animals on board. The Detroit zoo has far less than that and needs a full time staff to care for those animals.

      4. How was food stored and how did Noah determine the diet for the animals, some like koala bears eat only eucalyptus leaves found only in Australia? How did he get enough meat for the carnivores and keep it fresh?

      5. How was the tons of animal waste no doubt produced by thousands of animal's disposed of everyday. If 8 people took 5 minutes to clean a cage, that's 480 cages a hour that's 11520 cages in a 24 hr period. This assumes they take no break or stop to do anything else. Further still, how would they even begin to move thousands of pounds of urine and feces?

      6. In a closed environment like the ark, how did they keep disease from breaking out like wildfire?

      7. After the flood, what did the carnivores eat? If a jaguar killed and ate a deer, there goes the deer? Did carnivores forgo eating until their prey get to sufficient numbers?

      8. How did Noah live 600 years?

      9. With so much inbreeding, how did post flood survivors, human and animal, manage to produce healthy offspring? There's a reason incest is to be avoided?

      10. Why is it that civilizations that were around during Noah's flood seem to continue uninterrupted? If there was a flood like that, we'd expect that all civilizations of that period simultaneously disappear and then pick up at least hundreds of years post flood. Also all artifacts would be destroyed by a flood so no artifacts should pre date Noah's flood?

      I hope you can clear up these concerns.

    10. Your rantings are more than ridiculous for a number of reasons. One can tell what one worships when the stone is thrown to hew down the idol. the idol of materialism has been exposed as a shoddy piece of rubble designed to make men feel better about themselves. in itself there's nothing wrong with seeking to feel good about one's self. However, its another thing to live in a self delusional state. This is the problem with materialism and all the underpinnings and trappings of methodological naturalism. The belief that there is no ultimate or transcendent meaning or purpose to life.

      First that is a mind boggling and horrible mental state to embrace, but If that is so, then there is also no reconciliation or justice at all. The actions of Hitler stand shoulder with the actions of the most virtuous person that ever lived (let's say Jesus, as I believe that) if metaphysical naturalism is true. Stahlin, after having killed all that he killed and Pol Pot after having killed over 1/3rd of Cambodians, actions are ALL morally equal.

      Who can hold them accountable if metaphysical naturalism is true? In fact, they are JUSTIFIED for their atrocities if scientism is correct that God does not exist or is not a possibility.

    11. FM the question you pose are no more than bible study material, and what is worse, bible study material of children's and youth groups. I am not under any obligation to go back and forth answering every question that I am asked. What those of us that are faithful to the bible are required to do is account for the hope that is within us:

      1 Peter 3:15 ~ But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

      I have accounted for that belief and faith which comes from sound and irrefutable evidence. That evidence is rooted in reality. The reality of what we find in the world. The reality that says, if god did something then we can find the evidence. And alas, we FIND that evidence in the smallest and most minute bits of scientific study that identifies mass amounts of information necessary for life to begin. That information just did not arise on its own. that information was given, delivered, coded. It is a language that we only apprehend. Methodoligical naturalism has no method or way of accounting for any of this. But the bible has long had the answer and delivered it thousands of years ago in the New Testament saying :"In the beginning was the WORD" (John 1:1a) That WORD is a Greek word called "Logos" from which we get logic or order. The first principle of all things. the bible says that "WORD was God" (John 1:1b) and that "WORD became flesh" (John 1:14)

      The one thing that every historian admits is that their limitation IS history itself and the sources that spring from history. Ham points this out various times during the debate. Nye has no regard for the record of history that is not in support of his position. What we have is a source that is not just a story, but it is a history of a people. We read it as if it is just a story. I believe that is anti-semitic at its root, but that's what the critic does, has no regard for the people or their history. We would be totally offended as Americans if someone read the Declaration Of Independence or the Constitution 500 to 1000 years from now and said, those are just mythical ideals or pies in the sky. To make such a reconciliation of our very history is a slap in the face. Yet that is the metaphysical naturalist as he does historical studies...first he does not know what historical studies require and secondly he thinks all history is the same or can be perceived the same.

      I think I will write a book on this. This is too much good information to be delivered for free....

      Anyway, Go to the site:

      As the video plays underneath it are links that address ALL of the question you pose as they come into the questions. If Nye is your blueprint for evolution and to verify your belief, you are in TROUBLE. Aside from his admissions that science could not and does not know how to account for consciousness (which it does not), he can't even get metaphysical naturalism out of the barn to even start the universe, let alone biological life.

    12. So you don't have evidence for a 6, 24 hour day creation, plants before the sun, 900 year old men, talking snakes or magic trees?

      Or Noah's ark?

      I thought so.

    13. And YOU sir have NO evidence for consciousness, existence, biogenesis, first principles, what started natural laws, the beginning principle of the universe and cosmos, the anthropic principle or even why ANYTHING exists at all if all physics is deterministic...

      I thought so!!!!

    14. I never said I did. I'll take a wild guess and say it was the one true god, Brahma. That's right it was Brahma. Prove me wrong. Because if we don't know something, then it must've been Brahma. It says so (or something like that) in the Vedas.

      We all know those crazy science people just want to deny the supernatural power of Brahma with all their theories and stuff. We can't explain consciousness, existence, biogenesis, first principles, what started natural laws, the beginning principle of the universe and cosmos, the anthropic principle or why anything exists at all.

      So since we can't that therefore means that Lord Brahma is the one true god and that the version of Hinduism that I believe in is therefore the one true faith and the Vedas is inerrant and true in every way and I will ignore any evidence that may tell me anything contrary.

    15. So to recap:

      1. Anything science can't currently explain means that Lord Brahma did it by magic.

      2. I will ignore any evidence, scientific or otherwise, which contradicts a literal reading of the word of Lord Brahma.

      3. The only reason science doesn't acknowledge the supernatural is because they are in an active conspiracy to deny the power of Lord Brahma and the Hindu scriptures. After all, how can you look at a sunset, a kitten or the human body and not think "Wow, this all must have been designed by a creator. Therefore Hinduism is true."

      4. Something can't come from nothing like that crazy physicist in that video says. That's stupid. Therefore Lord Brahma did it by magic (or his omnipotent power).

      5. Evolution. Who needs it? My granddaddy wasn't no monkey! Evolution is a hoax so that we won't acknowledge the one true god, Lord Brahma and to keep this country from being a nation of devout hindus.

      6. Neuroscience can't explain consciousness, and even if they could, if they didn't agree with me that consciousness is caused by a soul that will be reincarnated until it reunites with it's Source, then I will just ignore and dismiss any evidence to the contrary. They must specifically arrive at the Hindu explanation for consciousness in order for me to even consider it to be valid.

  18. Sounds like to me a person who is whipped by the futility of their position! You keep going on and on over a failed metaphysical naturalist belief system.

    So to recap, STOP arguing things that are not in question. I guess when you have no argument, that's all you can do. Brahma made no claims of creation, so why would he be examined?

    This guys, "take my ball and go home" and bully ranting and raging is well refuted. That CAT DIED a long time ago!

  19. Just because you've never heard of the Hindu creation story doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Further more, you can substitute any gods, goddesses and/or magical genies, sorcerers or elves for lord Brahma and get the same conclusion.

    CAT DIED is flawed. You can't judge the truth or falsehood of another religion by the standards of your own. Of course other religions will always look to be false. Just like Christianity looks false if judged by the standards of Islam or Mormonism.

  20. Just walk away from the computer Fm...metaphysical naturalism can't even explain or prove first principles, yet they exist as the basis for all rational understanding...just get on with your life, get saved, take up a hobby, find something to do aside from making excuses for your appetite for sin.



  21. OK. I'm walking away. Yet I'm still confused from how we get from science can't explain thing x therefore the Genesis creation myth and no other creation myth, is true. I don't follow the logic.

  22. I'm not confused about it but, I can't get, that because one doesn't understand what theism and Christianity in particular teaches or embraces, that it is wrong or false. I certainly don't follow that sort of logic...

    But one thing is for sure...NOTHING is NOTHING. There is no degrees to it, and when there is, you are talking about something. That is the whole point of the article and that is certainly true as well.

    1. I understand Christianity is a belief system, but you are presenting the claims, at least the creation claims as facts of reality while at the same time wanting to escape the burden of proof.

      Proving evolution wrong or the big bang wrong is not enough. You have to prove biblical creation as being most likely. I've asked repeatedly for evidence accepted by mainstream science which would serve as evidence for biblical creation.

      You have yet to produce any of it. The only reason I can come up with is that there is none. I looked myself. I googled "evidence for biblical creationism accepted by mainstream science" and got nothing but creationism sites.

      And ones I looked at like answers in Genesis just gave interesting facts on several animals, which I could find in any book about animals, and said therefore god did it by magic and therefore Christianity, as we believe it, is true.

      Biblical creationism is a religious belief. Once it is moved into the realm of empirical fact, it is subject to empirical scrutiny. Its OK as long as its a faith based claim.


Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.