However I highly recommend the Nova entitled “Intelligent Design on Trial”. This should clear up any illusion of ID’s psuedo-science bullshit. Basically it boils down to, do you believe a book written 2000 years ago by fanatics interested in keeping their power or do you trust every credible scientist in the last 150 years. I respect your right to ignorance, but if you believe in creationism, don’t try and support it with anything put your faith.

“This is too funny. Darwin changed his mind about evolution and became a Christian.”

No he didn’t. Why don’t you read a history book instead using them for door stops?

Amazing that the Incult still try to spread this story.

“His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.[119] He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.[120] When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”[121]

The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[122] His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[123] His last words were, in fact, directed at Emma: “Remember what a good wife you have been.”[124]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Want to know the real deal about “Quest for Right”? I bought an e-book, read it and have written a review at:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/quest_for_right_review.htm

To give you an idea, he wants to change the names of all the planets and moons to something he dreamed up (Jupiter is now Controller).

Enjoy

Thanks for the correction.
I apologize to Lee Salisbury, for my ignorant statement then.

More ignorance about needing cosmology around to explain the time needed. If you want to discredit the time needed try plain old physics. The earth being billions of years old was firmly established using radioactive decay (in 1953).
Even more ignorance about how cosmology works. This time tiny things like triangulation (specifically parallax) , redshift and speed of light dictate a lower bound to the age of the universe. This has nothing to do with how the universe was created.

So explain to me why faith is needed for things I can measure and correlate. Like Laplace when he offered an astronomy text to Napoleon and Napoleon asked where is God said: I did not need that hypothesis. (Note this is a paraphrased version).

I truly suggest you take time to do some research instead of just accepting as gospel claims by people who know they are lying (Remember the “you shall not bare false witness” line in the bible) to keep their shallow faith alive.

@Frank Osborn:
Evolution has nothing to say about abiogenenis (or panspermia or exogenesis for that matter) since evolution does not posit an explanation on how life got started.

I don’t agree with young earth creationism, but this guy is just as deceitful. Which type of evolution were scientist asked about? Creationist agree with the basic theory of evolution, the adaptability of leaving things. That’s the theory of gravity comparison.
If you asked how many scientist agreed with Abiogenisis you would get a completely different number. True believer evolutionist are just is fanatical and unscientific as true believer Creationist . I can’t see a difference in the quality of their science.
This is just more political spin.

I don’t agree with young earth creationism, but this guy is just as deceitful. Which type of evolution were scientist asked about? Creationist agree with the basic theory of evolution, the adaptability of leaving things. That’s the theory of gravity comparison.
If you asked how many scientist agreed with Abiogenisis you would get a completely different number. True believer evolutionist are just is fanatical and unscientific as true believer evolutionist. I can’t see a difference in the quality of their science.
This is just more political spin.

http://www.desuntcetera.com/blogs/index.php?blog=2&p=31&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Just thought some people here would find it interesting.

there is much interesting commentary going on here. science has always had the virtue of stepping back from a failure and taking another look at the possibility of total faultiness. if you can accept the idea that you are totally wrong and see all the failures of your hypothesis(the basis of any scientific claim) then you have something that is at the core of every great scientist(einstein etc.). this is the idea that fact is what matters. a true scientist is not afraid to entertain bizarre claims in search of the truth(a very objective word), however a true scientist will never base his reality on those bizarre claims. imagination is key to taking steps that can be observed (another scientific step), so what we are left with is HUGE amounts of observed data, creatures that share very specific traits( ie scales or hair or eyes even certain types of all these things) and that in todays modern environment we observe changes at a genetic level taking place in all sorts of creatures. what we are left with is a proven theory(animals are changing genetically all the time) and lots of holes which pretty accurately fit the theory of evolution. and as far as the chicken and the egg. well some hypothesize(that pesky word) that proteins have an attraction to one another and that in a nutrient rich environment with heat or electricity and likely water, these chemicals will form more and more complex compounds. or there is the ice with bacteria arriving from an asteriod theory. regardless of how you slice it these are provable theories. you can take some bacteria and throw it in a tub full of water and nutrients and you will get evolution. so regardless of HOW we got here(and i mean we as in this planet that we SHARE with other animals(and for you creationists god supposedly made the animals too so they are sacred right?)) we are getting closer to KNOWING how life started(if its possible to ever know for sure).

phew! now lets touch on something a little different. creationists or should i just say those who believe in a creator. feel that evolution somehow cheapens it. that if we evolved over a slow process that forced us to adapt and EARN our place in this world that we are diminished in the light of god. I suggest to you another idea. the only thing i have found that comes close to bridging science and god. if god created everything and it is all a part of him/her/it, then is evolution not the most brilliant divine mechanism for creating life? if god is omnipontent and perfect then why would god go through such undignified means as just snapping and poof its all here. wouldnt god want us to have a rich history to explore and worship? i worship evolution because i think it is divine im not religious because true spirituality is colorless. so all these creationists who think that god blew his nose and the universe was created well thats kindof like the big sneeze.. er bang. and if you think god said oops theres a kink in the plan, eyeballs arent evolving fast enough so ill just spontaneously change my plan and fix that. well thats just silly. scientists often have an aversion to religion because it tries to convince you that youre guilty(original sin) with no hard proof so scientists say screw that im gonna find my own truth that i can prove. and religious people who are ridiculed for believing in creation go the opposite and live in a world that supports their internal faith. what is needed is the balanced appreciation of a book that, wiether written by god or not is for sure written in language and dialect that was meant for people 2000 years ago. god put science here so we could have some understanding of the divinity of the universe. if you believe that god is perfect then its easy to believe that gods techniques are so complex that to assume you know them is the ultimate blasphemy. open your mind and see that creationism is evolution and evolution is creationism. this post will most likely be flamed but for those of you who are in touch with their intuition and their logical observation this will ring true in a way that neither science nor god can disprove. so love eachother for Gods/Sciences sake!!!

I have read books and have studied biology in college. So I do have a basis from where to start. My comment was that I am not be up on all the new developments in the evolutionary theories. Evolutionary theory seems to evolve at a much faster pace than evolution itself. It is worthy to note that though my professor was an ardent evolutionist, in a private conversation he admitted to me that he could not explain where the building blocks of life originated from.

To say that biology and it’s theories regarding evolution are in some way distinct and not related to cosmology is ignorance. If cosmetologist can not prove through scientific means the age of the earth I see a problem with the millions if not billions of years evolutionists throw around.

As previously stated faith is something we all require and the problem with evolutionists fail to admit this. They seem to think they have some sort of high (arrogant) superior knowledge they condemn creationist\religious people of having.

I have no problem having my beliefs questioned and defending them. I do not see the same accommodation from evolutionists. They believe evolution is the only way and angrily attack anyone that would suggest otherwise. Real science should be questioned and so should religion. If you are unwilling to have your beliefs questions you are no better than the people you condemn.

Thanks for your comments! You’re absolutely right about the “tactics” these people utilize. As I wrote my previous comments I was constantly asking myself why am I investing so much energy in trying to refute a fool! Still, I guess its fun to “spar” from time to time, even while knowing that the outcome will always be at an impasse. It’s pathetic that people like Richard Widnar will “cut/paste” a very LARGE LIST of claims, facts, references, etc., without really understanding what it is that they’re posting. “Overwhelm the competition” with an impressive looking list of info. and the match is over! “Slam..Dunk…Creationists WIN!” Like many of our politicians and political commentators, these people never let a little thing like “facts” (or their understanding thereof) get in the way of their arguments….! Which reminds me of (yet!) another quotation, this one by George Orwell:

“Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.”

Its exactly the same for creationists!

Best Regards!

Jon

Actualy, this is 0.15% of scientists, not 2%. This works out to about 15 of every 10.000 scientists, or (incredibly) 1 in every 666.

Not many people realize that the Big Bang was caused by Pat Robertson stubbing his toe.

@Jack:
Before you spout nonsense like that learn about the subject. The big bang is cosmology not biology. And you just said: because in an unrelated field (cosmology) something I heard about, without investigating if it is correct, doesn’t sound plausible I do not believe that in another field of science (biology) evolution is possible.
That is the problem with most creationists. You don’t what you are talking about and instead of learning you accept on faith the claim made by others that evolution is wrong. Do some research instead, in this case it is almost as easy as grabbing a book or two and reading the first few chapters.

Mr. Widnar wrote: “…Kahill whines about a private organization, using private funds going through legal channels to obtain “another 600 parking places!!!” Why should you care, Kahill? Unlike public schools that use taxpayer dollars to teach students they came from bacteria (see my first post above), the Creation Museum uses no taxpayer money. Jonathan cries & kicks anyway. ” (end of quote)

That’s funny - I fully SUPPORT your right to be wrong and to be an idiot regarding your convenient “pick-and-choose” approach to science. I even support the rights of Ken Ham and other creationists to build their “Creation Museums!” Do you support MY right to criticize (politely, I must add!) all of the above? Do you grasp the key points of author Lee Salisbury’s article? Proponents of Creationism are not content to just have a different opinion from mainstream science, and have their own absurd museums that P.T. Barnum would be proud of! No, they need to promulgate their convictions into everyone’s life, starting with school boards, rewriting of the science curriculum, and so on. Ultimately, its not really about science but about their smug, sanctimonious belief that their particular brand of religion, and why it must be foisted on everyone else! This is why I am so ACTIVE about expressing my concerns, even about private (?) enterprises like the Creation Museum. I can question my opinions and can even change them! I’m willing to listen and learn. Can you do the same? Okay, if we’re going to “expand” on our high school science curriculum, who’s to say we choose YOUR version of “creationism?” Why not add the teachings of “Raven” from Northwest Canadian Indians tribes? Gotta love the Hindu’s and their Trimurti of Brahma! Of course, The Spaghetti Monster is gaining popularity. Why should we believe in your brand of biblical nonsense, and disregard all others?

Your parting comment “darwinian fanatics are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of the facts!” is absolutely ludicrous! Why should I believe your “facts” when you do not permit them to be “tested” and then accepted or discarded. A lot of (mainstream) scientific facts HAVE been discarded over time. A theory, of course, is usually based on a large number of facts! It’s funny (and pathetic) how school board members, trying to slip Creationism/Intelligent Design back into the classroom, ALWAYS get this wrong, saying that “Evolution is ONLY a theory - it’s not a fact!”

Well, no use beating a dead horse! I’ll leave you with one more quotation that you’ll (undoubtedly) not comprehend:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ” (Sir Stephen Henry Roberts)

Jonathan Cahill