One Minute Gospel: Ken Ham

71 CommentsOne Minute Gospel

Ken Ham is the president/CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis-U.S. and the Creation Museum. This is the reason why Answers in Genesis exists according to them:

We all have questions about the world.

  • Why are we here?
  • Did life evolve or was it created?
  • Does radiometric dating prove the earth is billions of years old?
  • Can the Bible be trusted?
  • Is Christianity opposed to science?

Perhaps you’ve had some of these questions yourself. Answers in Genesis provides biblical answers to these and other tough questions about creation, evolution, and the Bible.

Here is Ken’s one minute gospel.

 

Feel free to correct or add what you think may be missing from these one minute presentations. Also, if you think you can preach in about sixty seconds, record it, send it to me and I may post it! Click here for more One Minute Gospels from Gavin MacLeod, Eric Hovind and Hugh Ross.

Comments (71)

  1. theB1ackSwan

    Reply

    So, basically he wants to answer those questions about the world in the context of what he already believes? That seems quite a bit backwards.

  2. vintango2k

    Reply

    The Young earth Creationist parade continues! Pass the baton Steve =)

      • vintango2k

        Having studied biology a bit, and having had a chance to work with scientists, my view is that we’ve drawn some pretty concordant conclusions about how are planet was formed, roughly how old it is, how long life has existed on said spinning rock, how its been evolving, and roughly how much of it arrived in its current state. Most of the biological sciences today are founded off of these concordant conclusions that life on this plant has been around for billions of years and that it evolves over time.

        Even Ken Hamm agrees he just doesn’t like the word evolution, and he picks and chooses what he accepts when it comes to the science so he doesn’t look completely absurd in his denials.

        The problem is that geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, genetics and a many other fields of science interweave when it comes to conclusions about the age of the Earth, nature of life, fossilization, etc. that picking and choosing what you believe about it becomes impossible.

        Young Earth Creationism has been soundly debunked, its not even truly supported by the Bible, which is why there is Old Earth Creationism, because Christians who don’t want to look foolish in denying — tested observations of the reality they happen to live in that they assert was created by God — or scientific facts that have been uncovered over centuries of investigation.

        Tell me though Steve, if God created a particular aspect of life like say a koala bear, and you devout your life to studying koala bears and every aspect of koala bears, and find that a koala bear is really a marsupial….. as opposed to what your pastor has been saying that its really just a bear like all other bears, would you not try and correct him? …. What if that pastor kept insisting it was just a bear like a brown bear or a black bear against all evidence… or kept insisting that marsupials don’t exist despite the evidence in genetics? What is more correct to believe… the physical evidence or the words of your pastor?

      • Nohm

        My view is that YECism is baffling. As Vin points out, it’s hardly just one group of scientists who came to the conclusion that the earth is old; it’s a variety of disciplines who all figured this out.

        But my experience with YECers and anti-evolutionists is the following:

        If I thought that science or evolution was what they think it is? I’d also think it was bunk.

  3. T. Alvarez

    Reply

    I went to the Answers in Genesis site after learning about this ministry on Wretched.
    I ordered their Science and History school curriculum for my kids for next school year.

      • theB1ackSwan

        This is funny to me considering you have literally no idea what the Theory of Evolution actually states. All I’ve seen you mention are gross misunderstandings of it.

      • vintango2k

        Calling a scientific fact a lie Steve is a lie, Steve. If I went around telling people that the theory of gravity is a lie Steve, would I be lying? Thou shalt not lie Steve. =)

      • perdita

        Steve – remember Darwin’s Rubber Ruler? It’s really hard to listen to you about this when it’s been established that you don’t mind when Creationists and creationist organizations lie about evolution and evolutionary science. Lies from ICR didn’t seem to bother you at all.

      • vintango2k

        Oh I got my book in finally Steve, once I finish reading it, I’ll send it to you if you’re still keen on sending me that Lee Strobel book I’ll ship it to the return address.

      • Whateverman

        he best way to counteract the lie of evolution is to be more informed about the truth!

        You’ve got no moral authority to claim anything about other people lying, Steve. The cold, hard truth is that if God showed up on your doorstep and told you He created the laws we understand as the theory of evolution, you’d jump on the Darwinist bandwagon with nary a thought for your integrity or self-respect.

        You’ll trumpet whatever you believe God’s word happens to be, and if that leads you to blatantly contradict yourself, you’ll do so reverently. In short, nothing you say can be trusted to be truthful, because truth, for you, is subject to change.

      • vintango2k

        Its a … science book! … actually its a book about science that’s a pretty easy read, not too long, you might find it informative Steve!

    • vintango2k

      Reply

      I’m curious T, how will you explain Endogenous Retro viral Insertions to your kids in a biblical context? I’m just curious.

      • Nohm

        Now that’s not even fair, Vin.

        In other news, T. Alverez, I hope you’re not planning on your children going to a UC or Cal State school, since the required units to be accepted into those universities/colleges is not covered by AiG materials.

      • Whateverman

        how will you explain Endogenous Retro viral Insertions to your kids in a biblical context

        Satan put ’em there, to lure geneticists away from God. Or God’s testing our faith. Or something…

      • Joshua Alvarez

        We would learn about it, in this way:

        Since Endogenous Retro viral Insertions is evidence that there are similarities between apes and humans, we can tell: that just like the jet plane and the wooden plane have similarities, they share the same blueprint.
        Therefore we can conclude that God used the same “blueprint” for apes and humans, since we have similarities.

        Thanks for your concern though.

      • vintango2k

        “Since Endogenous Retro viral Insertions is evidence that there are similarities between apes and humans, we can tell: that just like the jet plane and the wooden plane have similarities, they share the same blueprint.”

        Not even close Joshua! We know how ERVs get into the DNA of living beings (quick explanation, innert retroviruses infiltrate a gamete, insert their RNA chain into host DNA and that random insertion of RNA is copied in every subsequent host generation) and this has been OBSERVED under laboratory conditions. RNA insertions are a little like fingerprints, no two are ever the same as the point of in the chain, the odds of that happening are astronomical, and they’re simply one technique geneticists use to determine heredity…. (retrovirus A infects your great great grandfather and that innert RNA chain is then passed on to all his descendants, if you possess that chain it means you’re a descendant, if you don’t then you’re not.) The only way and reason apes and humans would have the EXACT same ERV is because of…. common ancestry! =)

        Therefore we can conclude that God used the same “blueprint” for apes and humans, since we have similarities.

        ERV’s are not blueprints Joshua, they’re viral insertions… viral waste products that do nothing and serve no function. We know how they are inserted and its not by a creator, its by a virus. To say they were put there is to think that a bug bite you have on your arm, must have been put there by God… and not a bug.

      • Whateverman

        we can conclude that God used the same “blueprint” for apes and humans, since we have similarities

        Are you a young or old Earth Creationist, Joshua? Seems to me that YEC is incompatible with ERVs…

  4. Joshua Alvarez

    Reply

    theB1ackSwan: “This is funny to me considering you have literally no idea what the Theory of Evolution actually states.”

    I am sorry that you have misunderstood the explanations from many Christians, about what evolution is.
    We do know what the theory of evolution states.
    I would suppose that you believe in the Laws of Science.
    If you do, then how do you justify the Laws of science?
    What is the basis of the Laws of science if evolution is a reality?
    If evolution were true, then what is the foundation of the Laws of science?
    If Darwin’s theory were true, then the Laws of science would be just based on people’s opinion.

    The Laws of science are founded on the scriptures.
    The Bible can justify science by telling us that God created the world, and placed science in it.
    Evolution can’t account for science.
    If you think it can, then how?
    There is no justificaton of science in evolution.

    • vintango2k

      Reply

      Josh! So good to see you again, you never replied to the last post, you just sort of dropped a few bombs and ran away… always happy to help clean up your mess though lets see…

      “I am sorry that you have misunderstood the explanations from many Christians, about what evolution is.”

      – By all means, explain away, I’d love to hear it! –

      “We do know what the theory of evolution states.

      – State it if you know it Joshua, its not very complicated. If you’re trying to disprove something or debunk something it helps to learn everything about that subject before proceeding. Making sweeping general statements aren’t very convincing.

      “I would suppose that you believe in the Laws of Science.
      If you do, then how do you justify the Laws of science?”

      – Wow… Josh do you live every day in fear that gravity will stop functioning, or that your atoms will burst apart if the laws of physics just stop working? You can ‘justify the laws of science’ because to put it simply… they work… can be observed by anyone with a little study… and have predictive capability. The computer you’re posting from Josh is just one example of science at work.

      “What is the basis of the Laws of science if evolution is a reality?
      If evolution were true, then what is the foundation of the Laws of science?
      If Darwin’s theory were true, then the Laws of science would be just based on people’s opinion.”

      – I don’t know what you’re trying to say here Josh… look… species evolve over time. This has been observed… it happens… just because it happens doesn’t mean all of science stops working or have suddenly just become… everyone’s opinion. The only thing that could be… everyone’s opinion… is what God wants them to do. =)

      “The Laws of science are founded on the scriptures.”

      – Again I ask you Josh, in the last post that you failed to follow up on, Passage and Verse please, I want to read the verse that explains the scientific method.”

      “The Bible can justify science by telling us that God created the world, and placed science in it.”

      – Everything we’ve learned in science, contradicts that… if you believe in Genesis that means you believe that Babylonian mythology which influenced the ancient Hebrews was correct. Look up Marduk and the Babylonian creation stories if you’re interested.

      “Evolution can’t account for science.
      If you think it can, then how?
      There is no justificaton of science in evolution.”

      – You’re right Joshua, Evolution can’t account for science… because that’s not what it does… its an explanatory scientific theory. Please man… do a little research before posting… you’ve made quite a mess here. Have a nice day!

      • Joshua Alvarez

        vintango2k: “By all means, explain away, I’d love to hear it!”

        Alright: Evolution is basically the idea that we evolve over time to a higher species.

        vintango2k: “Wow… Josh do you live every day in fear that gravity will stop functioning, or that your atoms will burst apart if the laws of physics just stop working? You can ‘justify the laws of science’ because to put it simply… they work… can be observed by anyone with a little study… and have predictive capability. The computer you’re posting from Josh is just one example of science at work.”

        What I meant was that if evolution were true, then there would be no basis and no foundation of science. If evolution were true and we are constantly changing and evolving, then how did science get into the picture? When did it come into the picture? If it exists, then there has to be a reason for its existence. How do we determine the Laws of science are true? How can we know that, if evolution were true, we don’t have senses that are faulty. How do we know if our senses are lying to us, and that they show us something completely different from the truth? How do we use these senses to determine what science is founded on if they are faulty? If we exist we have had to have a beginning. I’m sure you agree with that. If science exists, then there had to be a begginning also. What was the beginning of science? Did man just bring it into the world? If we did bring it into the world, then before we did, was there contradiction like for example: that a universe both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time? If you say yes, then that is not logical. How does a man’s decision about bringing science into the world, change the fate of a universe? It’s illogical.

        vintango2k: “I don’t know what you’re trying to say here Josh… look… species evolve over time. This has been observed… it happens… just because it happens doesn’t mean all of science stops working or have suddenly just become… everyone’s opinion. The only thing that could be… everyone’s opinion… is what God wants them to do. =)”

        Where is your evidence that species evolve over time? Where is the scientific proof that one species evolved into another?

        vintango2k: “Again I ask you Josh, in the last post that you failed to follow up on, Passage and Verse please, I want to read the verse that explains the scientific method.”

        I will not show it to you until you show me some evidence of how evolution explains how science came to exist.

        vintango2k: “Everything we’ve learned in science, contradicts that…”

        Where is the evidence for your claim? Do you have scientific evidence that disproves God and the Bible? It seems that you are just leaving statements around without having any support for them.
        Until you show me “the 100%” proof that evolution is true, I won’t give you any evidence for the Bible. You go first.

      • perdita

        Alright: Evolution is basically the idea that we evolve over time to a higher species.

        I’m sure I won’t be the first to point this out, but, no, that is not evolution – however, it is a fairly common misperception of evolution!

      • vintango2k

        Josh! You’re back! Awesome! Good to see you sticking around this time lets see what you have here.

        “Evolution is basically the idea that we evolve over time to a higher species.”

        – Not really, sort of close though, definitions rarely contain the verb form of themselves… for instance, Revolution is the act of revolving. This is technically true but doesn’t offer much explanatory power. Put simply, evolution is change over time, but in a biological context it is change over successive generations which has lead to the diversification of life over time. There isn’t any ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ really there is only change to meet the challenges of a changing environment.

        “What I meant was that if evolution were true, then there would be no basis and no foundation of science. If evolution were true and we are constantly changing and evolving, then how did science get into the picture?”

        – You’re still all over the place with this own honestly, just because we change and evolve doesn’t mean reality changes and evolves. While it is true a great deal of things do change in the universe (such as the fusion of hydrogen into helium) these are merely state changes of atoms, the ‘substance’ of what they are has … so far until any evidence comes forward to show otherwise… remained steady and constant, which is why chemistry and physics work. Because of the way we and many other species reproduce each new generation possesses slight variations or mutations which may result in positive or negative effects on the individual… a lot of that depends on environment though to determine whether or not that variation has given that individual any sort of edge over its competitors. If its successful, it lives on and passes on its genes, increasing the chances that that mutation will become increasingly more common in a particular species. This has been observed under laboratory conditions, in the wild, and in the fossil record… its also been observed genetically as well.
        Science got into the picture as a product of natural philosophy. Essentially philosophers had been debating truth and human nature for thousands of years, it was only a matter of time before they began to discover truth about the world around us, the lifeforms on it, and how they came to be in their current state based on observation and testing of evidence collected.

        “How do we determine the Laws of science are true? How can we know that, if evolution were true, we don’t have senses that are faulty. How do we know if our senses are lying to us, and that they show us something completely different from the truth?”

        There are a variety of ways you can determine this Joshua. The easiest is that once we learn enough about a subject and can make successful predictive capabilities we tend to accept it… as truth. As an example, if I offered you a cup full of cyanide, would you drink it? You might drink it if no one informed you what cyanide was, but if someone stopped you and explained the effects of cyanide on biological lifeforms, showed you the results of experimentation of cyanide on living beings, and then showed you, chemically what it does to the cells via a microscope, it might give you pause to not drink it.

        The way we know our senses aren’t lying to us is because there’s a consistency of sensory information in human beings and furthermore a consistency in physics which makes for a stable universe that allows for us to, more easily and readily, draw conclusions about the way reality works.

        “How do we use these senses to determine what science is founded on if they are faulty?”

        – I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here, if your senses are faulty it could be due to injury, drug induced hallucination, or mental impairment such as dementia. In this case, we understand the causes of these ‘breaks downs’ and how they can impair judgement because they like many other things in the universe are consistent and have been consistent.

        “If we exist we have had to have a beginning. I’m sure you agree with that. If science exists, then there had to be a begginning also. What was the beginning of science?”

        – Science has been kicking around in one form or another for much of human history. Testing reality in order to better understand it has been around since Egyptian times and most likely even further back. It didn’t have an ‘official’ beginning though you could consider Sir Francis Bacon and the founding of the scientific method in the 1600’s the birth of science in its modern form.

        “was there contradiction like for example: that a universe both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time? If you say yes, then that is not logical. How does a man’s decision about bringing science into the world, change the fate of a universe? It’s illogical.”

        – It sounds like you’re trying to make an Eric Hovind style argument or some such and furthermore this statement is just confusing, man didn’t decide to bring science into the world, science is the result of man testing the world around him, recording his conclusions and then offering those conclusions to other men in order to test the veracity of the conclusions.

        “Where is your evidence that species evolve over time? Where is the scientific proof that one species evolved into another?”

        Much like you and your cousin are different people with different combinations of genes, so are humans and chimpanzees. You might then scream, COMMON DESIGNER! COMMON DESIGNER! But then why do we, when we look under the hood so to speak find similarities in the structure and gene code of these two species? For instance you could take the hair on a chimp, a human, and a fly and compare them, and you would find the chimp and human hair are structurally identical whereas the fly hair is vastly different, even though both are technically hair. Why would they not all be identical if common ancestry did not occur? Why would great ape hair be so similar? That’s just one example, the most obvious one is ERVs as I’ve explained above, but you could go the fossil record route too… or LINES or SINES in the mitochondrial DNA of our cells… not to mention evolution under laboratory conditions the list just goes on and on.

        What sets a species apart Joshua is typically whether or not the members of that species can interbred viable offspring. Once two separated species of animals are incapable of interbreeding it usually means they’ve formed their own separate species much like chimps and humans.

        “I will not show it to you until you show me some evidence of how evolution explains how science came to exist.”

        – Uhm… evolution doesn’t explain how science came to exist… evolution is a part of science. That’s like saying explain how this computer monitor on my desk caused my computer to exist…

        “Where is the evidence for your claim? Do you have scientific evidence that disproves God and the Bible? It seems that you are just leaving statements around without having any support for them.
        Until you show me “the 100%” proof that evolution is true, I won’t give you any evidence for the Bible. You go first.”

        – How much do you really want to read? I could type some more and continue to expand this post even further or you could simply just use the internet in a meaningful way and do some research. When it comes to biological evolution you’re talking about every species on the planet, from plant fauna to fish, to reptiles, to mammals etc. and the paths they’ve taken over the course of billions of years to arrive at the current state we find them to this day. Which category would even interest you? Plants perhaps? The BBC put out a wonderful series recently called How to Grow a Planet that explains plant evolution pretty simply for general audiences to grasp, but the great thing about it is, that you can investigate each element they talk about during the series and learn even more about it, such as the evolution of algae, conifers, grasses and even flowering plants and their effect on animal species, climate, and even the planet itself. I don’t want to start posting a bunch of links as Steve typically doesn’t like that, but I might try just one.

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        This is a faq site when it comes to discussing evolution and YEC and can provide you with links to sourced material. There are books on amazon you and read, a decent one is Science and the Religious Right, What America Needs to Know about Both, its not too long, an easy read, and pretty much hits on a variety of fields of science that are pretty easy for the lay person to understand.
        You’re never going to have scientific evidence that will ‘disprove God’ because the notion of a singular, all powerful, intelligent, super natural deity, is an assertion that is made without any evidence. One that, and I assume, you were told is true from a very young age till now, but it is an assertion, one that must be proven with evidence if it is to be accepted as true by the masses. Its not up to us to disprove your assertion, its up to you to prove it!

        For instance if I were to declare that I am a purple dinosaur, and then list no evidence about how and why I am a purple dinosaur you can dismiss my claim until I can demonstrate why it may be true. You might be able to show how I’m not a purple dinosaur, you might even declare that I am human… but now you’re making an assertion that I am human… the difference is that you can offer a wealth of information about why and how I’m human. At the end, since I have given no evidence for why I’m a purple dinosaur, and you’ve given a mountain of evidence for why I’m a human, which conclusion would you draw?

        Okay your turn, give me some evidence in reality that supports the Bible, or is solely explained by the Bible. =)

      • Nohm

        Hi all,

        I think the problem here is that Joshua is using Sye’s presup argument, but is (accidentally, I would think) replacing “laws of logic” with “laws of science”, and that’s why this isn’t making much sense.

        If you replacing Joshua’s use of “laws of science” with “laws of logic”, you’ll see that it’s fundamentally Sye’s standard presup argument.

        That, of course, doesn’t make it any more valid, but I think that makes it far less confusing for us readers.

      • Nohm

        Hi Joshua,

        As perdita pointed out, your description of evolution is a common misconception, especially when you use the word “evolve” in its own definition.

        Having said that, I feel the need to point out that it’s my experience that very few teenagers, of any religious/non-religious background, understand the theory of evolution. Therefore, please understand that I am not mocking your lack of knowledge in this area; it’s 100% expected that a teenager would misunderstand scientific theories (I know that I sure did when I was your age).

        Whether or not you feel it intrudes on your religious beliefs, I encourage you to learn more about the scientific method and the theory of evolution if you want to attack it with any kind of success.

        Thank you.

      • vintango2k

        Thanks for playing Joshua, hopefully see you next time. I do enjoy these discussions, and I sincerely hope you learn something from them. =)

      • vintango2k

        13? Hmmm well that’s good that means there’s still time =)

    • Whateverman

      Reply

      how do you justify the Laws of science?

      Depends on what you mean by “justify”, not to mention what you’re referring to as a “law of science”.

      There’s a difference between the physical laws that govern our universe and our approximations of them, in that the former require no justification, while the latter certainly do. Science is the practice of establishing those “laws” by testing and modifying our understanding of them – which is a process of justification.

      aka. science provides you with the very thing you’re asking for. A law of science is justified by definition.

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Joshua Alvarez wrote: “We do know what the theory of evolution states.”

      1. From my experiences, this statement is false. I’m not saying that no Real True Christians know what the theory of evolution states, but I’ll claim that the vast majority of people, much less Real True Christians, do not know what the theory of evolution states.

      2. For my own curiosity, if you were to boil it down to a single sentence, what would you say that the theory of evolution states? (Hint: there are examples of this sentence online)

      • Steve Sanchez

        Let me ask you, Nohm: Did we all evolve, billions of years ago, from some blob, or one cell something-or-other? Did we all come from one thing? I’m serious. Isn’t that evolution?

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        You wrote: “Let me ask you, Nohm: Did we all evolve, billions of years ago, from some blob, or one cell something-or-other?”

        I have no idea what you mean by “some blob”, so I’ll answer that with “I don’t know, but no, I don’t think so”. As for “one cell something-or-other”, I’ll answer with “that’s what the evidence points to, yes”.

        “Did we all come from one thing?”

        I don’t know. Probably, but not necessarily.

        “I’m serious. Isn’t that evolution?”

        That’s a teeny tiny part of the theory. It would be like me saying, “so, there was a forest or jungle or something and some kind of talking animal that told a woman something, right? I’m serious, isn’t that Christianity?”

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        Ah, I think I misread what you wrote, so I’ll try again:

        You wrote: “Did we all come from one thing?”

        That’s what the evidence appears to point to, yes.

      • perdita

        Then I would say, “Poppycock!”

        That’s fine, but do you say that because it goes against your instincts? Do you actually understand what you claim to be poppycock or is your understanding of evolution as muddled as Joshua Alvarez’s?

        If I see that you don’t have a basic understanding of evolution and if I see that your case isn’t logically supported, why should I accept your claim that evolution is poppycock?

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        You wrote: “Then I would say, “Poppycock!””

        I’m not clear on what this is referring to.

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        Any chance of you explaining what “poppycock!” was in reference to?

      • Steve Sanchez

        That we all came from some blob or something or other billions or millions of years ago. That the beautifully created and designed human came from a single cell. Double Poppycock!

      • perdita

        That the beautifully created and designed human came from a single cell.

        It’s called a zygote.

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        If I thought that evolution was what you think it is, I’d also think it was poppycock.

        Fortunately for evolutionary biologists, your understanding of the science, as perdita pointed out, appears to be muddled.

        Joshua gets a pass, due to his age.

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Hi Joshua,

      You wrote:
      “I am sorry that you have misunderstood the explanations from many Christians, about what evolution is.”

      No. What BlackSwan was saying is that many Christians, and certainly fundamentalists, like you find of this blog, have a very different idea as to what the theory of evolution claims, than what it actually claims.

      This is how you get things like the “crocoduck”, or “why are there still monkeys”, or “the peanut butter jar is the enemy of atheists”, or “evolution is a religion”, and so on.

      “We do know what the theory of evolution states.”

      As I mentioned before, I do not believe that this statement is true, and that’s based on 15 years of talking to Christians and Muslims about this topic.

      Overwhelmingly, my experience is that people, much less religious people, do not know what the theory of evolution states. Anti-evolutionists understand this even less, from my experiences, hence my statement:

      If I thought that the theory claimed what they think it claims? I’d also think the theory was bunk.

      “I would suppose that you believe in the Laws of Science.”

      I have no idea what you mean by “the Laws of Science”. Please explain what you mean by this, as this is not a phrase used by scientists (unless you’re talking about the laws of gravity or thermodynamics or relativity).

      “If you do, then how do you justify the Laws of science?”

      Assuming I even understand what you mean here, we justify them because they work consistently.

      But, having said that, I question if you understand what the word “law” means in scientific nomenclature; it’s a definition that many people get wrong (e.g., “it’s just a theory, and not a law yet”).

      “What is the basis of the Laws of science if evolution is a reality?”

      This sentence does not make any sense. The “basis” of the “laws of science” (I still don’t know what you mean by that) would be the same whether or not evolution is a reality. We determine that evolution (and common descent) are reality by using the scientific method, which is the same way we’ve created nuclear power plants and telephones and computers and cars and so on.

      “If evolution were true, then what is the foundation of the Laws of science?”

      Again, whether or not evolution reflecting reality has nothing to do with “the foundation of the Laws of science”. The foundation of the “laws of science” is the scientific method:

      Observation
      Hypothesis
      Testing
      Theory

      “If Darwin’s theory were true, then the Laws of science would be just based on people’s opinion.”

      1. Evolution is no longer “Darwin’s theory”; that was 150 years ago, and we’ve made a lot of knowledge gains since then.

      2. Please explain how your conclusion of “then the laws of science would be just based on people’s opinion” follows from your singular premise of “If Darwin’s theory were true”. Again, whether or not the theory of evolution being true has nothing to do with “the laws of science” (which is killing me, because I still have no idea what you mean by that).

      “The Laws of science are founded on the scriptures.”

      Now I really have no idea what you’re talking about.

      “The Bible can justify science by telling us that God created the world, and placed science in it.”

      By that logic, then the Qur’an can justify science by telling us that Allah created the world, and placed science in it.

      If you don’t believe me, view this page of google results for scientific miracles in the Qur’an.

      You might not know, but they (Muslims) are VERY much into this idea.

      What makes your claim different from the claim of a Muslim?

      “Evolution can’t account for science.”

      Again, this sentence doesn’t make any sense. What were you trying to say here?

      “If you think it can, then how?”

      It’s like saying “chemistry can’t account for science”, which also makes no sense to me, so I have no idea how to respond to a question where I have no idea what you’re asking.

      You use the term “laws of science”, where you obviously mean something very different than any other “laws of science” definition that I know of.

      “There is no justificaton of science in evolution.

      Again, I have no idea what you mean by this. The theory of evolution is justified by the scientific method. That’s how the theory was formed and advanced.

      The only way any of this makes sense is if you somehow view “evolution” as a religion that competes with “Christianity” and “Islam”, which is a view I find to be baffling and lacking an understanding in the terms and nomenclature used.

      I look forward to your clarifications.

      Thank you.

    • theB1ackSwan

      Reply

      I saw vintango’s reply, and I like what he said, but allow me to answer in my own words as well.

      I am sorry that you have misunderstood the explanations from many Christians, about what evolution is.
      We do know what the theory of evolution states.
      If you would be so kind, please do tell me what models the theory of evolution proposes. So far, all of Living Waters’ figureheads and their supporters have gotten it incorrect, as with Hovind and Ham as well.

      I would suppose that you believe in the Laws of Science.
      If you do, then how do you justify the Laws of science?
      I really don’t accept “laws” of science, as you propose it. Laws is a pretty poor term for what you’re trying to demonstrate. I accept theories such as gravity, cells, germs, evolution, and many others because they account for what we test in the present and make very precise predictions of the future. If you want to chat about science in the form of philosophy, I’d be fine with that too. For now, I’ll simply recommend you read Hawking’s “The Grand Design” for a good explanation of philosophies behind science.

      What is the basis of the Laws of science if evolution is a reality?
      If evolution were true, then what is the foundation of the Laws of science?
      You’re trying to argue that the fundamental principles of science are invalidated if evolution isn’t true. You have it completely backwards. It is the fundamental principles of science that allowed us to come up with the predictive model that is evolution.

      If Darwin’s theory were true, then the Laws of science would be just based on people’s opinion.
      Justify this assertion, and also see above.

      The Laws of science are founded on the scriptures.
      Justify this, please. Specific quotes and contexts would be appreciated. Last I checked though, the Bible makes no mention of observation, hypothesizing, testing, analyzing, and debating, much less gives any notion of statistical inferences.

      The Bible can justify science by telling us that God created the world, and placed science in it.
      Science isn’t a tangible thing. You can’t just place science into things. Science is merely a process to determine the reality of the things that surround us.

      Evolution can’t account for science. If you think it can, then how? There is no justificaton of science in evolution.
      You’re trying to argue that subsets must necessarily define sets. Again, the opposite is true. Evolution doesn’t account for science – evolution is science. Your error stems from a lack of understanding of what science actually is – the philosophy behind it, really.

      • Nohm

        “Science is merely a process to determine the reality of the things that surround us. ”

        That is the nutshell, Joshua.

      • vintango2k

        …from some primordial soup a trillion years ago!

        Was this in response to zygotes? Its the first cell you originate from Steve… that’s right you Steve, at one point, were a small microscopic cell… so you find ‘some primordial soup’ a stretch?

      • Nohm

        Steve, but why do you say “poppycock” to something you haven’t even investigated?

        Again, I’m not claiming “everything came from the same cell”, I’m simply pointing out that that’s where the evidence points.

      • vintango2k

        From the zygote? Yes. Everything that you grew out of came from that zygote… the only thing that was flowing into that cell was energy (nourishment) that lead to cell division and the formation of your more complex biological systems ie. organs, brain etc.

      • Steve Sanchez

        Wow! Amazing what complexity comes out of time and chance. So much variety even! Talk about faith! You evolutionists have a very strong one!

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        You wrote: “Amazing what complexity comes out of time and chance.”

        1. As I’ve mentioned a few times before, I’m a determinist. Therefore, I don’t believe in “chance”.

        2. This sentence of yours seems to show that you still have never looked up “emergent properties”. I bet I could mention quite a few things that you view as “complex” (even though you have no way to determine that) that you’d agree came from time and “chance” (your word, not mine).

        You wrote: “Talk about faith! You evolutionists have a very strong one!”

        3. It’s not faith when you have evidence. Do you consider what detectives do, when solving a crime, as “faith”? Would you say that detectives have a very strong faith when they use evidence to determine a suspect?

      • vintango2k

        I’m failing to see the complexity = designer argument Steve. The concept of ‘complexity’ is relative. I mean if every single thing in existence was green and there happened to be an object that was blue, would you still consider reality to be complex? Or further more, would you then argue… “Look how simple life is! It must have been designed! Think about it? We design things that work to be as simple and stream lined as possible due to cost and conservation of energy… and because the universe is so simple, it MUST have been designed!”

      • vintango2k

        Simple. Reproduction with variation (which all life forms do because there is an advantage to it) … environmental pressure (which all life forms endure, and this can be positive and negative, for example an oxygen rich environment giving rise to multi-cellular life or a giant comet smashing into the planet, leading to the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and a lot of other lifeforms) … and time (which this planet has had in spades)

      • vintango2k

        Your mama would read from science journals to you as a kid? Did she discuss horizontal gene transfer? Perhaps Short INterspersed Nuclear Elements and their role in ‘junk DNA’? As a kid I understand why it would put you to sleep, but that’s the beauty of growing up, we get to learn more about the world and how it works… well some of us do… others just end up with sand in the ears.

      • Steve Sanchez

        It was a joke…with implications!

        Not only did I get sand in my ears living near the beach and being an avid body surfer, I may still have a little water on the brain!

      • vintango2k

        Oh additionally, does the Bible explain the KT boundary Steve? Don’t you find it quite odd that you only find dinosaurs below the KT boundary and never above… fascinating isn’t it?

      • perdita

        My mama would tell me this story at bedtime…

        Don’t you think that if your beliefs on this subject were tenable, you would be able to respond with something other than childish quips? And please don’t use the pearls-before-swine excuse, because that’s all it is – an excuse. You keep bringing science and evolution up; you keep backing down with little jokes and empty assertions that highlight your willful ignorance.

  5. T. Alvarez

    Reply

    Nohm : “In other news, T. Alvarez, I hope you’re not planning on your children going to a UC or Cal State school…”

    Phew! Your comment had my worried there for a minute.
    But then I remember, I hold a CA Multiple Subject Teaching Credential (K-12)and I think my kids will do just fine when it comes to earning credits.

    • vintango2k

      Reply

      Unless of course… its in a science class… if they grow up to be bankers, or economists or engineers I suppose they’ll do fine… I just feel sorry for them if they’re interested in science, AiG coursework won’t really help them there, but it might do a good job reinforcing their faith… can’t say that’ll get them a job as a scientist though if its YEC coursework as it pretty much counters established science in physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, genetics… hmmm… and offers up… well… nothing much in return.”

      I am curious though T, I’d love to get a sample of one of their science courses though, just to see what they’re proposing.

    • Nohm

      Reply

      T. Alvarez, please read the page found out this link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402761,00.html

      It’s even a Fox News link.

      “U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school’s review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.”

      Hence, it has nothing to do with *your* qualifications, and everything to do with credits that are accepted regarding religious homeschooling.

      Hence, my point stands.

      • Nohm

        Even though it’s a Fox News link, I should probably also list the headline, so you can understand the context before or instead of clicking:

        Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts.

  6. Blythe

    Reply

    you need to accept science and cease spreading lies.

    Religion is a hangover from our past, it was used to control primitive people and give answers to things they could not understand.
    It was the first way to rule people to control them, to give societies
    shape. Much of what was once unknown is now known, and there is no reason for the myths and hangups from the human past to continue.

  7. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    perdita,

    As I’ve said before, the Genesis account and evolution are absolutely incompatible.

    I have no felt need to offer any proof to you or other atheists whatsoever.

    Let God be true and every man (or woman) a liar.

    • perdita

      Reply

      You are correct: a literal Genesis account and evolution are absolutely incompatible. Do you know what else is incompatible? a literal Genesis account and history; a literal Genesis account and geology; a literal Genesis account and cosmology.

      I know you feel no need to offer proof that a literal Genesis account is true. Handy that, because all evidence shows that it’s just another creation myth.

      Let God be true and every man (or woman) a liar.

      Which really means, “Let my (Steve’s) interpretation of the Bible be true in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.”

      • vintango2k

        “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

        Guess the next time you go to the doctor’s office Steve or get your shots you just shouldn’t trust that guy, because he’s obviously lying to you. Medical science who needs it, its just a bunch of made up bunk anyways, am I right? =) I mean why learn about this stuff, when ignorance is so blissful?

      • perdita

        I know you are. Why do you willingly choose delusions?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *