Recently I have taking on a discussion with, what I have encountered to be, a standard run of the mill Darwinist. His blog is at http://truelogic.wordpress.com/. It has been a consistent bob and weave by Mr Truelogic as I try to discuss with him the subject of his posts. He consistently brings up attacks on my beliefs and my standpoints  and never defends the points he tries to make in his posts. Then he made the following statement and it all became clear:

“1. You believe Jesus Christ was born to a virgin!
2. You believe Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead!

Because you believe the above two points with ALL your heart and because NOTHING will cause you to believe otherwise, which is sound evidence demonstrating Science has nothing to do with your world/life view. That alone should cause intelligent people to pause and question the validity of anything you state and question your ability to be objective and honest.”

Something about this statement caused me to think about the state of the creation vs Darwinism debate. This statement shows why the debate has stalled. Too many Darwinists refused to listen to anything that apposes their belief in Darwinian evolution unless it comes from a Darwinist, do you see the problem with this?

It is intellectual dishonest to exclude someones ideas, thoughts or scientific research based on their religious beliefs. This is setting a standard that only allows your opinion to be confirmed and never challenged. How do we move past this and get the debate back on a productive path?

P.S. I will be addressing the quoted statement on truelogic’s post, feel free to join us if you have something to add.

I came across this article in the American Thinker web site from Ron Lipsman. He speaks about the liberal attitudes in academia and how Darwinian evolution is slowing scientific research. Check it out here.

If you want to discuss it below I would like to hear what you think of the article.

Recently the subject of Dr Behe’s irreducible complexity theory has been catching my attention again. Several people have brought it up and inevitably it leads to a mention of Ken Miller and the Dover trial.

In a September 23, 2005 article Kenneth Miller was quoted as saying:

“The logic of their argument is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own,” said Kenneth Miller

Here he sets up a straw man argument, it is the same one he continues to use today. Dr Behe claimed instead that the mechanism in question, lets take the infamous “bacterial flagellum”, would not work if any one part of its system was not present. This failure to function would then lead to a failure in the larger organism. If the flagellum did not have all of it’s parts it would not function and would have been discarded.

So the theory of irreducible complexity does not claim that a part of the mechanism could not be used somewhere else and I am surprised that someone with as much intelligence as Dr Miller would miss something so obvious, I would hope he did not do it on purpose.

I am always fascinated by the need of the Darwinian community to have the approval of their peers in order to justify their views. Many times in debates they fall back on the need for peer reviewed articles to measure the legitimacy of an idea. If you take this stand point, would you accept an article if it were published in a peer reviewed journal that allows articles on creation science or articles pointing to the legitimacy of Intelligent Design?

Does the publishing of articles that you do not agree with remove the authority of peer review from a journal? Who has to give their stamp of approval on a journal to give it the gold seal of legitimacy? Does it matter if an article is printed in a scientific journal if it is published in a book?

‘Intelligent design’ judge to speak at Bridgewater

Story from HERE

In recognition of Constitution Day, the Hon. John E. Jones III will speak on “Evolution, Intelligent Design and Religion in the School” at 7:30 p.m. Sept. 17, in Cole Hall at Bridgewater College.

I would love to see a transcript or video of his talk, I bet the odds are in favor of this being very interesting. I would recommend anyone that can attend, do so. If you do attend please email me your review of the event or a link to your recview if you post it some where else.

Thank you in advance.

Recently I was watching PZ Meyers favorite documentary, “Expelled”. To avoid going down well tred rabbit trails there is one part in the documentary that I missed the first couple times I watched it that jumped out at me this time.

In the interview with Richard Dawkins, Mr Dawkins says some very interesting things. Ben Stein asks “How did it get started?” (the creation of the universe) and the brilliant Mr Dawkins answers “nobody knows how it got started.”

So let me see if I got this right. Dawkins does not know how life got started but he does know that no one knows. Thats it, God must be a figment of my imagination, I am totally convinced now.

Seriously though, this is what I am asking for help to be explained. Why is it a logical argument to say that no one knows how the universe, and ultimatly life, was started (created) but we know it was not God?

If you do not know how something was done is it a possiblity that God was involved?

The last day or so the blogs here on WordPress have been a buzz with news and reports from CreoZerg. For those that do not know what this is, evolutionist PZ Myers took a bunch of his fans on a field trip to the Creation Museum. Now all these evolutionist bloggers are gloating over their adventure and making fun of the “Creationists”. I guess that proves they are right.

I do not know how we can ever hold to our knowledge of creation because they made fun of a museum, this has destroyed everything I thought I knew. Ok, back to reality. I am glad that evolutionists, Darwinists and atheists alike took time out of their busy lives to visit the Creation museum. My only hope is that one of them heard the Gospel and will throw off the chains of bondage that holds them to this world and accepts the truth of Jesus.

Thank you PZ for showing me that some things never change. Kids will always act like kids and evolutionists will always mock the truth.

Sorry it has been so long since I last posted, you know real life and how it can get in the way of our hobbies. I am still working on some new posts to put on here and I hope to develop some good discussions. But in the mean time I came across this video and wanted to see what everyone thinks.

Is evolution mathematically impossible based on population growth? and please watch whole video before commenting because your may find answers to your questions in the video before you ask it.

About a month and a half ago the evolutionist where beaming with the news they may have found their missing link. 6 weeks later not a peep can be heard, wounder why? Here is an example of the hype that was spreading through out the WordPress evolutionist blogs:

blog 1 “Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial “missing link” between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom.”

blog 2 “Scientists are calling this fossil the “missing link” in human evolution.”

blog 3 “Today, scientists have unveiled a new transitional fossil a nearly perfectly preserved, 47 million year old human ancestor they’re calling “Ida” that despite being a primate, I happen to think looks a lot like a dinosaur.”

blog 4 “According to paleontologist Jorn Hurum “Ida” is a crutial part to the evolution of man or “the missing link”. “Ida”, known among the scientific community as Darwinius massillae.”

Now we have an article on scientificamerican.com that disputes the ‘missing link’: “Not only is Ida too old to reveal anything about the evolution of humans in particular (the earliest putative human ancestors are a mere seven million years old), but she may not even be particularly closely related to the so-called anthropoid branch of the primate family tree that includes monkeys, apes and us.”

So is the link still missing? Do evolutionist even care if one is ever found? Do evolutionists even care if any evidence is ever found?

On a side note, I love the way the scientists jumped at a chance to immortalize their god by naming a bunch of dead bones after him – Darwinius massillae.

I recently took part in a discussion at an atheists’ blog, Proud Atheist, the resulted in me being blocked form commenting. It was not the act of being blocked that disappoints me, it in the way the host (named Mark) did it. Did he notify me in any way? Nope. Did he warn me either in the comments or an email? Nope. All he did was block me. I found out this morning when I went to respond to some questions and accusations from some of the other commenters and my comments do not show up. Is this the kind of open discussions that atheists claim to have with theists?

There are plenty of other atheist blogs that have not resorted to this kind of censorship, at least that I know of. But this is representative of what is happening in the scientific community and government school systems. My comments where my opinion, usually made in response to a question or statement made by someone else, but the responses I got where mainly name calling and character attacks. Then when it did not scare me off, BLOCK.

Thank you Mark of Proud Atheist for showing your true colors and I hope you enjoy preaching to your choir. And yes I will censor and block any hateful comments you make in response to this post, as I have stated before I do not allow profanity on my blog. Profanity is a weak mind trying to express itself.