Comments on: Ben Stein’s Intelligent Design Movie

By: Keith Allen

Keith Allen — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:25:52 +0000

Zeph
Thanks for your friendly reply - it’s so much better to discuss things without anger getting in the way. You may not accept this, but the Creator DOES say so - and He has said so many times (to His Prophets - many of whom have written down what He said). The real problem for many Evolutionists (and atheists) is that they refuse to accept such writings - but ARE willing to accept the writings of Darwin, Dawkins et al. Being omnipotent does not equate to being a magician - other than in the sense that the word ‘magician’ originates from the word ‘magi’, meaning ‘wise man’. I personally ’see’ God as the Ultimate Scientist, knowing ALL things (omniscient). My beliefs give me hope - something that Naturalism cannot do (for ANYONE). Imagine believing in life after death - you could only ever KNOW that you were RIGHT. If you didn’t believe, you could only ever know that you were wrong! I CHOOSE to believe because it seems logical to believe in hope, not hopelessness. That we came from NOTHING, endure a purposeless life, then return to nothing, is a doctrine of despair. We have a purpose, a divine opportunity, and we HAVE been told how to achieve it - all we have to do is CHOOSE. As an aside, Natural Selection is a true and tested science, but it is NOT Evolution - Evolutionists tend to ‘muddy the waters’ by using the word ‘evolution’ when actually referring to Natural Selection (which is usually claimed to be the driving force of Evolution - but the ‘car’ is heading in the wrong direction). As for the Big Bang - there was ‘once’ neither space nor time (hence the ‘once’), just a ‘point-singularity’ in the ‘middle’ of the timeless nothingness. This ‘point’ then exploded (why?), thus producing matter, space, and time. I find it so annoying to be accused of believing in fairy stories! I do appreciate your recent comments, and the spirit of your response - this somewhat lengthy reply is to simply let you know ‘where I am coming from’.

By: Zeph

Zeph — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:31:06 +0000

of course I’d like to know how life AROSE. evolution does not explain that 100%, nobody ever said it did. it does, however, give a possible process of how it did arise, which creationism does as well. the difference, however, is that “mud to man” at least has a hope of being tested, and does have evidence and data derived from actual tests. creationism, does not. it has been, and never will be tested. ever. the only way to prove creationism is to have the “creator” say so. and as far as I know it hasn’t bothered to tell any of the people currently alive today about its existence. I won’t deny that creationism DOES explain how life arose, but it explains it much as magic explains how a magician can saw a stagehand in half. it sure looks and sounds like a nice explanation, but if you go home and try it, I guarantee it won’t work.

By: Keith Allen

Keith Allen — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:12:54 +0000

Zeph, then Jay
I am not the one who is RANTING - just read your last responses! ‘Evidence’ should be EVIDENT - it is in this sense that I make the claim that creation is everywhere to be SEEN. I certainly don’t insist that you agree with me - far from it, you have every right to believe whatever you wish to. However, if you wish to believe in ‘mud to man’ evolution, wouldn’t you at least DESIRE to know how life spontaneously arose, and wouldn’t you want your theory to explain it? It matters not how much either of you may mock, ‘my’ theory DOES explain the origin of life. By the way, have you both noticed that Jeremy has not responded to my questions?

By: jay

jay — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:04:19 +0000

Hahaha! Nothing amazes me more in this day and age that a person with access to a computer in a public library and the correct spelling of “Answers in Genesis” can automatically assume to be smarter about science than scientists themselves.

While it’s true that the theory of evolution has a few areas that are unclear, it is the best scientific theory to explain how life changes over time. Please tell me where evolution is supposed to explain the creation of life? Why, if you have all the answers, do you constantly confuse the origin of life with the evolution of life? Why does your god make you unable to understand that basic difference? Did you sin against him again? Did he put you on another time out?

And then to completely throw out the theory of evolution based on it’s few holes is absurd. Ignoring the false dilemma that if evolution is false, creationism must be true for a second, there are infinitely more holes in the christian creationism myth than there are in any scientific theory. Who created the creator? Your law of biogenesis claims that life must come from life? So who created god? And which god supposedly created the life? Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc? And, where is this evidence again? If it’s all around me, why does it not manifest itself? Why after years of research and study of the items around us do scientists continuously discover scientific natural explanations for things? What exactly is the supernatural trying to hide?

Oh, and yes. Let’s throw out the entire scientific method and make up stories to explain what we see around us using “common sense” or “gut feelings.” That way we don’t have to learn! That way we can continue with our sentimental fallacies!

You armchair scientists are hilarious. Anything at all to protect your fuzzy feeling of having an invisible best friend that listens to your wishes and tucks you in to sleep at night.

And HJ…with your whining about how no one answered your questions. I directed a couple questions at you that you haven’t yet answered. I’ll repost so you don’t have to go looking:

Please explain why the Discovery Institute spends more time attacking the current theory than providing evidence for creationism. Also, if it was my personal belief that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe by shooting magic through her horn, and I got this information from a coloring book that claimed it was the unicorns word and coloring skills and the coloring book itself said it was utterly true, should my belief be allowed to be taught in biology class?

Oh, and if I don’t check in before Sunday, enjoy Zombie Jesus Day! “Eat my flesh and drink my blood…and you will be a zombie just like meeeee….”

By: HJ

HJ — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:49:20 +0000

Hey Keith, Notice how none of our questions were answered! Oh Big surprise! Aannnd waiting! and waiting, and waiting …

By: Zeph

Zeph — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:40:51 +0000

“‘Evidence’ for Creation is everywhere to be seen”

I really just don’t understand how one can go from “gee, this is pretty complex looking and difficult to explain” to “an invisible sky being must have made it!” you rant about how “believers” of evolution can’t stop and look around and see the evidence for other explanations, well neither can you stop and look and around and see something other than creationism. perhaps your precious book is believable to you, but it takes a little more than 2,000 year old writing to convince me that an invisible creator exists. evolution really has nothing to do with creators, and I’m really quite surprised that the creationists haven’t just ended the debate the easy way (as they do everything else) and state that it was all a part of god’s big plan and the reason the evidence for evolution is there is to test your faith in him. what’s the big deal if evolution is correct? so you’re related to some organisms who might be considered monkeys? deal with it, it is what it is.

By: HJ

HJ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:56:55 +0000

Hey Keith, I won’t waste anymore time on them! “There is none so blind, Than those who will not see” They don’t want to know! They’ll fine out the hard way! There is no evidence in Whole World that they will look at! Just pray for them! Romans Chapter 1 Verse 18-32! Keith check out The Institute for Creation Research ICR The R.A.T.E. experiment. They are now working on the R.A.T.E. II experiment. Testable, Repeatable and Observable.

By: Keith Allen

Keith Allen — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:05:51 +0000

Jay
The spelling is actually irrelevant - your ‘whole’ argument is ridden with ‘holes’! REAL scientists ‘poke holes’ in the Theory of Evolution (not Natural Selection) because it is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible - it violates the LAW of biogenesis! ‘Evidence’ for Creation is everywhere to be seen - it may not be ’scientific’ to you, but try using a little
‘common sense’ (it served the likes of Isaac Newton pretty well).

By: Keith Allen

Keith Allen — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:45:42 +0000

Zeph
I’ll take each of your points in order:

1. The basic molecules are not ALIVE!
2. The components are not ALIVE!
3. MIGHT have? Conjecture!
4. ‘Selection pressures’? Is ‘anything’ actually ALIVE yet?
5. Same question as in 4!

As for my second challenge, you must surely realise that your response is, at best,
a ‘fudge’.

By: jay

jay — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:42:25 +0000

…that’s what I get for typing while on the phone.. It should be “holes” instead of “wholes”.