Hold your faith in front of you to shield yourself from the truth!

Years ago they did a study on the Shroud of Turin and found out conclusively that it was a fake dating from about 800-900years ago! (I'm not going to go into all the methods they used, ya just gotta trust me on this kids!)

End of story.

No more!

Period!

But!

The religious guys couldn't live with this, and as a result have spent many a sleepless night looking at the problem!

They looked at it this way :-p

And that way ;-o

and then this way ;-(

And this %-(

etc. etc.

THEY WERE LOOKING FOR LOOPHOLES, BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T LIVE WITH THE CHALLENGE TO THEIR FAITH!

Now, in spite of the evidence, they keep coming back, year after year, with stupid "what ifs" about how this was done wrong and that was done wrong, and then "new" evidence came up, and on and on!

You almost have to feel sorry for them because no matter how many times ya beat them up.... they just keep coming back for more!

(Good God, that headache is starting again! See, that's the problem with religious people. They hold their faith before them to ward off the truth, about the same as Van Helsing holds a cross in front of himself to ward off Dracula!)

I have personally proved evolution many times over on this site and even presented the proof to that nut Kent Hovind. (This was with the intention of collecting the $100,000.00 dollar prize for proof of evolution, but the S.O.B. has never paid up!)

Now in spite of all the times we have shown Creationists the folly of their ways, they always come back for one more kick at the cat.

This guy is no exception!

You better be careful what you ask for Allen.

Nearly 12,000 "churches" are promoting Darwinism in their congregations during 2009.
"Answers" April-June 2009 Vol.4 NO.2 pg. 61 Follow the link to see some of ICR's research: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-379.pdf

Explain to me why Fish and yourself think that ICR doesn't follow scientific methods.

"This means you should be able to form a hypothesis, observe and experiment to test it and find out whether your hypothesis is true or false."

"Scientists don't claim that everything came from nothing. They think that there's a very long process where everything changed forms and the universe as we know it still needs to be studied to find out what happened."

This is a very contradictory statement. Evolutionists don't claim that everything came from nothing yet "nothing" changed forms. Sounds like everything came from nothing to me. And if it didn't where did "everything" come from?

Evolutionist claim, "we know it [the theory of evolution] still needs to be studied to find out what happened."

However they also claim: "Creationism neatly packaged all the questions and problems it can't answer into a black box it labeled God and then pretends as if it has a solution."

Why is it creationists are expected to know it ALL but evolutionists are given a pass with the excuse they have not figured it all out yet?

What is different about man compared to all other creatures that makes the study of science possible for us?

If man's brain is nothing more than rearranged pond scum that came into being by random chance over billions of years, how is it that knowledge and rational thought is possible for man?

The universe has to be orderly and comprehensible in order to make a human mind capable of rational thought. Evolution says we are a product of many mutated accidents of chance.

Evolutionists have a magic black box in which time and chance created matter and energy from nothing by magically defying the second law of thermodynamics to give us an orderly world we see today. Time, chance and magic are the gods of the evolutionists.

Lee C.,

O.K., as with most other fanatics, he is all over the place and I'm sometimes not sure of which side of the argument he is trying to prove, but, I will give him a few brief points on the truth of Evolution and the folly of Creationism.

We will address a few points here, and as a reference I choose to quote from the "Encyclopedia Galactica" since it is the most comprehensive reference work in the entire ........ Galaxy!

FIRST: "Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years.

Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact.

What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220).

The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes.

Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over.

The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow.

This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that.

In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

SECOND, in response to Lee's last paragraph:: "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]

Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution.

The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."

Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness.

Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.

If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still?

Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order.

However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.

In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system.

If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument.

Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak).

For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents.

Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five.

Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success.

For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones.

All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

AND THIRD: I have to quote Lee directly on this one; "This is a very contradictory statement. Evolutionists don't claim that everything came from nothing yet "nothing" changed forms. Sounds like everything came from nothing to me. And if it didn't where did "everything" come from?"

Lee, rather than get into a big philosophical discussion on this perhaps you had better get out your own copy of the "Encyclopedia Galactica" or any other reference book you have handy and look up creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing", creatio ex materia (creation out of eternally pre-existent matter), and creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God).

Once you have them straight you might be in a better position to understand the whole Creation/Evolution debate.

SO, DEAR READERS; That takes care of Lee and hopefully he will never darken these doors again, but rather crawl back into his dark little hole of ignorance.

In the meantime, I will sit here and wait for the next asshole to pop up!

You know, sort of like when you go to the carnival and play "Bop the Weasel!"

Your "pissed" scribe;
Allan W Janssen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Allan; Those people are FUN FUN FUN to screw with, because they'll never give up, hence I'll never get bored. *evil laugh*
Leah Christensen

-Allan; A character in one of my stories (Bad Blood) made the observation. "The difference between religion and science is truth. In religion, truth is absolute. In science, truth is relative."
To expand a little for those who need it; in all religious belief, something is held to be true (or not) and requires no proof, no qualification - it just is. And it is not contestable.
Scientific belief demands that everything is subject to the information available. A scientific "fact" (arguably a contradiction in itself) is always liable to reassessment should new information become available. It is simply the best explanation of current observations.
Why people subscribe to any form of religious belief is a response to need and fundamentally zoological, and ironically itself a product of evolution (in my opinion, of course!).
Pat Whitaker

-Allan; Don't you realize that evidence is the work of the devil? Holding a rational discussion with a hyperreligious person is like losing your bladder in a dark suit - you may have a warm feeling, but they don't notice.

-Allan; As Monty Python used to say, "Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Walker Bennett

-Allan; "In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution." And very strong evidence for bad acid!
Dusty W

-Allan; I simply do not consider anyone-- thirty or older, formally educated or not-- as intelligent who does not believe in evolution. It took me years to ward off the myths I was taught as a child.
Leo L.


Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know......!) and is available as an E-Book H E R E ! and as a paperback H E R E !

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://allans-perspective.blogspot.com