Palin: Heritage and Science Challenged

Come on...do you REALLY believe yourself?
The Bible, God's Word, can stand up to TRUE SCIENCE. The reason that evolutionists are terrified of loosening their strangle-hold on our educational system is simply this: the evolution theory is not TRUE SCIENCE! Deep inside themselves they know that when they're truthfully, realistically & scientifically compared, 'intelligent design' will conquer the 'theory of evolution' completely. When the pseudoscience of evolution can't scientifically back up it's ideas - it's only option is to try and silence everything else.

There are many intelligent, well-trained scientists who research & teach 'intelligent design'. It isn't some religious doctrine...it is science that scientifically verifies God's Word. THAT'S what scares people who don't want to believe what the Bible teaches!

One more thing, I do remember hearing about the statements made by Darwin shortly before he died. I don't have access to the actual quote at this moment, but he was upset about what had happened with his THEORY. He said something like...they've taken the thoughts/ideas of a young man and made a religion out of them. It was only meant to be a theory. There was also some comment made about how his ancestors weren't monkeys, etc... that lead me to believe he probably came to a true knowledge of God before he died. (Anyway, I think some evolutionists need to look the word 'theory' up in a dictionary)

Ann, the definition of a theory is an explanation of the facts. It isn't a guess. The facts evolution explain are the facts of common descent. Man shares common ancestry with other animals and this is proved in several different ways. Humans and chimps share key sequences of amino acids (They are identical). Also the common descent of all animals is well recorded in the fossil record. The creationist claim that the fossil record is open to interpretation is ludicrous. It is, but only to anthropologists not religious fanatics who think the Earth is only 6000 years old. There is much more proof for common descent which anyone can find on the Internet - if they aren't afraid of the truth. That humans share common ancestry with other animals is a fact whether this happened by Darwinian evolution or some other undiscovered process common descent will always remain a fact. Intelligent design not only denies known facts it explains absolutely nothing. ID has no way to advance knowledge, medicine, make predictions or do anything else. There is nothing that even could be taught about ID because it isn't science, it's religious dogma and nonsense.

I would like to ask Ann when has science ever had to revise one of its theories in the face of religious claims? Never and it never will. It's always Christianity that has to back off its flat earth type claims, move the goalposts back and then engage in apologetics to cover up previous mistakes and lies. The people denying evolution are Bible believers and no one else. Bible believers have denied every scientific discovery that has ever been made since there was a Bible - even the ones made by other Christians! So this evolution denial is nothing new and it isn't just evolution fundamentalists deny either. It's cosmology, geology, oceanography, anthropology, chemistry, physics, astronomy and all other science as well.

ID is not a scientific theory for four reasons. First, ID's advocates do not set aside explanations that are beyond human reason, as the nature of science requires. Scientists refrain from considering God's actions in their work. Instead they use observation, experimentation, prevailing scientific theory, mathematics, logical arguments, strict empirical standards, heuristics, and healthy skepticism to produce knowledge. Scientific theories are therefore explanations about aspects of nature without reference to God. This means they are natural, and we call this context methodological naturalism.

Second, ID's advocates spend their time, resources, and energy criticizing and distorting the character of evolution in particular and science in general. One example is their claim that science practiced as methodological naturalism is atheistic. The methodological naturalism of scientific work and knowledge does not mean that scientific work and knowledge are atheistic. Let me demonstrate this point with two hypothetical science teachers, Sue and Joe. Do Sue and Joe consider God in deciding where to park their cars in the school parking lot or where to sit in a theater? If not, Do Sue and Joe, then, reject God because they did not consider Him in their decisions? I think not. Scientific work and knowledge are properly silent about God because they do not consider Him. Science cannot logically conclude that God does or does not exist because science does not consider God in their work. Claims that evolution is atheistic or that science denies God are based on faulty logic, assume a particular philosophical view, or both.

The claim that evolution is a theory in crisis, perhaps even in bankruptcy, because it cannot answer certain questions is a classic example of a logical fallacy that philosophers call an appeal to ignorance. [According to American philosopher P.J. Hurley's textbook, A Concise Introduction to Logic,] "when premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the arguments an appeal to ignorance. The issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved." The further claim that ID is the only alternative to evolution involves the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. This Fallacy "...is committed when one premise of an argument...presents two alternative...as if no third alternative were possible." For instance, yet another alternative states that evolution is God's design.

Third a useful scientific theory will be modified or replaced only when a new theory is proposed and documented through scientific work to explain and predict as much or more. Until this happens, ID has no place in school science.

Fourth, the motivation, strategy, and behavior of ID advocates are not scientific. This point can be clarified with a metaphor. Standing in line is perhaps a universal experience. Meal lines, grocery cashier lines, driver's license lines, and auto license plates lines are all too familiar experiences that sometimes test our patience. What do folks who are waiting in line think when someone cuts in line? Their thoughts are probably neither positive nor charitable. ID doctrine and its advocates are attempt ting to cut in line. Biological evolution stood in line for over 140 years to become the single accepted a scientific theory for explaining the observed diversity and underlying unity of living organisms. Standing in line means that evolution has been thoroughly and repeatedly examined through accepted scientific work, which shows that evolution explains the observed diversity and underlying unity of living organisms very well, but not completely. standing in line also means that scientists use evolution to make an extensive variety of accurate predictions. Such work has provided humans with antibiotics, vaccines, and better foods. ID advocates have not generated acceptable scientific work, nor have they set forth accurate predictions based on their work; their theoretical proposal is to an audience of citizens, not to the scientific community. A central strategy of ID advocates appeal to the public is to charge that scientists are unfair, biased, close-minded, and protective of a bankrupt theory. The scientific community has responded, and continues to respond, by pointing out that the advocates of ID doctrine are attempting to cut in line by not conducting and reporting acceptable scientific work.

Great, another religious nutjob wants to chip away at science and ultimately place religious myth on an equal footing with science. As one who has left all religion behind, I tend to see Christianity as just as inane and agressive as Islam. Both spend way too much time worrying about sex, preventing any line of inquiry that undercuts absolute faith and hoping to metastasize across the planet. Religion, if looked at in the most benevolent light, may have had a unifying influence on early civilization but those times are long gone, we just don't need religion anymore. If anything, we need to shed these ridiculous superstitions, they hurt us everyday. The same scientific methodologies that bring us workable understandings of physics, electronics and medicine also bring us our understandings of evolution. I never hear Christians challenge the science of electricity, disc brakes or radio waves. The scientific method works ok in these areas. Apparently, it totally falls apart when it challenges their closely held superstitions.

To Mr. Lynn:

I do agree that public arenas (public schools, colleges, univ., and etc.) should be neutral on any belief or non-belief. However, they need and have to be actually neutral on those. For example, they can't say, "You cannot pray here", or "You can't fast to your religion here", and other stuff like that. How much worse if however, any religion, belief, cult, or un-belief, runs the country. It is sad that instead of abiding by the U.S. Constitution, we now abide by left, right, religious, and non-religious policies. Why can we not abide by the documents of our founding fathers instead of having political motivations? By the way, I do agree with religious time in public arenas during ones' free time. Only protest if it is threatening.

Reverend Lynn,

If the concepts of Intelligent Design are "religion masquerading as pseudoscience", then what is philosophical materialism?
It certainly isn't science, but it is what is demanded by many evolutionists.

If philosophical materialism is demanded to be true a priori, then of course Intelligent Design is ruled out-of-bounds. But this ruling is not via unbiased science, it is via a biased, protected philosophical belief.

Jerry said: If the concepts of Intelligent Design are "religion masquerading as pseudoscience", then what is philosophical materialism?
It certainly isn't science, but it is what is demanded by many evolutionists.

Boris says: Philosophical materialism certainly isn't science but to say that is what is demanded by "evolutionists" is ridiculous. Philosophical materialism is a popular humanistic philosophy held by people like Thomas Jefferson which is based on a scientific worldview but has nothing to do with science. What "evolutionists" and other scientists are interested in are experiments, demonstrations and the gathering of data, not some kind of philosophy. Misidentifying science by calling it "philosophical materialism" is no different than calling the Christian religion "the Christian system of dogmatic superstitions" and lot less accurate.

Jerry says: If philosophical materialism is demanded to be true a priori, then of course Intelligent Design is ruled out-of-bounds. But this ruling is not via unbiased science, it is via a biased, protected philosophical belief.

Boris says: Scientists aren't interested in the kind of absolute "truths" Christians claim to possess. Nor are scientists in the business of offering dogmatic proofs for anything but rather claim nothing can be proved for sure. False claims CAN be refuted scientifically though. As far as the claims made in books by Intelligent Design promoters (I could say ID hoaxers to bend the language as Jerry did) such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel and the rest, all of these claims have been thoroughly and meticulously refuted by scientists. As far a science being biased and protected this is another ludicrous claim. No avenue of human endeavor is more open to scrutiny than science. Scientists absolutely love proving each other wrong - upsetting the status quo. If someone could disprove say evolutionary theory and replace it with another one, that person would become instantly rich and famous. This hasn't happened and it isn't going to.

"In a just world, there would be no public education, with the result that parents would send their kids to the schools of their choice without depending on funding from the childfree or those who might disagree with their idea of parenting."

Yes, because we know that the childfree never benefit from public education.

I take it as a sign of Palin’s intelligence that she supports teaching both Intelligent Design and Evolution in classrooms. I don’t see why you evolutionists have such a problem with it. What are you afraid of? If evolution is such an obvious fact, then even if ID is taught no one will believe it because it is so ridiculous, right? Furthermore, ID is not even a Christian theory. All it proposes is that a study of living things shows they must have been designed based mainly on the principle of irreducible complexity. That as far as they go─nothing is said about who the designer might be, simply that things were designed. Exactly why I am not an IDer.

Boris, I have a bone to pick with you starting with your definition of a theory. Its fine until you said it’s not a guess. In many ways, it’s just an educated guess. Unless you can claim omniscience, no theory, not even the theory of atomic construction, much less the theory of evolution can be considered fact. Your problem is you mix up what is fact and what is theory. You said, “The facts evolution explain are the facts of common descent. Man shares common ancestry with other animals and this is proved in several different ways. Humans and chimps share key sequences of amino acids (They are identical). Also the common descent of all animals is well recorded in the fossil record.” The facts are not common descent. Common descent is an idea(theory) hence not a scientific fact. The facts are the fossils. You look at them and put together a theory of common descent. Your thoery of evolution is just as much a theory as creation, and as it turn out, it has a lot less support.

Boris, you are the one who needs to move out of the non-fiction section of your library. Key amino acid sequences in chimps and humans are not identical. There is a two percent difference, and in the DNA world, that is a huge amount. Common descent has never been and never will be found in the fossil record. No transitional fossils have ever been found. Even the late Mr. Gould admitted that the biggest weakness in the theory of evolution is its lack of transitional fossils. In the fossil record, where evolution should have the greatest amount of evidence, hard facts have been annoyingly elusive.

So you see, you really have nothing to support your theory. Many scientists who are not Christians, and some who are evolutionists, while supporting evolution admit that it is not a scientific fact. It is a theory and just as open to discussion as creationism. I repeat, why are you afraid of honest discussion. Are you worried people will see through your fragile web of inconclusive and unverifiable “facts”?

"Ask any true mathematician the odds of evolution being fact."

Can you tell me what credentials you have to discern what a “true mathematician” is? Is it the same skill you use to discern that the bible is “true”? If so, can you tell me what credentials you have to discern that the bible is “true”?

By the way, what would a "true" mathematician say about the chances that god exists?

Andy,
Before any theory can replace evolution it has to be able to explain something and offer some way to advance knowledge. It would be impossible for there to be two different but still useful and productive explanations for life. ID cannot offer any way to advance medicine for instance. Only our knowledge of natural selection can do that and it has. Evolutionary biologist are alone responsible for doubling the average human life-span in the last 120 years. Your disrespect for them and their work is only exceeded by your hypocrisy. When you get sick and see someone who is an M.D. that person uses their knowledge of evolution to cure you. When you get sick you really should be true to your faith and go see Benny Hinn or Todd Bentley to be cured. Nope, you trust science over faith when it comes to your own personal well-being now don't you?

Behe's book relying on his irreducible complexity idea was debunked 6 decades before he wrote it by Nobel Prize winner Hermann Joseph Muller. The rest of ID dogma has also been thoroughly and meticulously debunked by scientists also. The first life on earth were simple cells with noDNA which reproduced by division. No designer was necessary. The complexity of life evolved over 4 billion years . ID uses backward logic by looking at life after 4 billion years of evolution and wondering how such complexity could have just popped into existence. It didn't of course.

You said: So you see, you really have nothing to support your theory. Many scientists who are not Christians, and some who are evolutionists, while supporting evolution admit that it is not a scientific fact. It is a theory and just as open to discussion as creationism. I repeat, why are you afraid of honest discussion. Are you worried people will see through your fragile web of inconclusive and unverifiable “facts”?

Boris says: If anyone could disprove evolution that would have been done a long time ago. Scientists love proving each other wrong. The person who has no verifiable facts is YOU and you know it too. What you are saying is that you know more about science than paid scientists. That is the kind of arrogance and ignorance and it really goes to show just how dangerous religious delusions can be. Do you think the words of a person like you who is a member of a cult who has fought against every scientific discovery ever made do anything but entertain me? I have nothing to support MY theory? What have YOU got? A book that says the earth is flat and immovable and orbited by the sun! A book that talks about demons, angels, Satan, talking animals, unicorns, fiery serpents, satyrs, seraphs, cockatrices, witches, impossibly old people, flying serpents and a lot of other magical mystical nonsense. Are YOU worried people will see through your fragile web of inconclusive and unverifiable nonsense? Obviously you are quite worried. I can tell.

Hey Boris, your biggest problem is you separate faith and science. It is impossible to separate them--your BELIEF that there is no God dictates that you accept evolutionary explanations for life. My faith that there is a God dictates that I look for something deeper than blind chance. My point to you was not that I could prove before you eyes that creation was true, rather I was attempting to help you see that evolution is no more "provable" than creation. You say I have to have lots of faith to believe in a God who created everything, well, you have to have just as much faith or more to believe that a Big Bang happened how many ever years ago when life just popped out of nothing.

You say I trust science over faith when it comes to my medical health--wrong by a long shot! My faith is the basis of my trust in science. God created men with minds to be able to operate on the human body. Sure I know doctors are smart men, but they couldn't pull off one operation without God.

If you want to call ID logic backwards because they look at something in the present and using that data theorize about the past, you had better call yourself backward. What do you think you're doing when you look at fossils and the fossil record in the PRESENT and determine that in the PAST there evolution and common descent. As far as irreducilbe complextiy goes, I want to hear a refutation of it using the blood clotting pathway. Do you even know what that is?

You said if evolution could be disproved, it would have been done long ago. You are exactly right. The problem is evolution cannot be disproved because it is a theory of origins. Nobody was there when the Big Bang happened so you can never prove, or disprove, that it happened. Evolution and Creation deal with past events that happened when no one was around and so incidentally can never be proved or disproved by science. They are theories that can only be supported by science. So evolution and creation can never be scientific facts. Proving something is possible is a far cry from proving it happened.

This is what you called the Bible "A book that says the earth is flat and immovable and orbited by the sun! A book that talks about demons, angels, Satan, talking animals, unicorns, fiery serpents, satyrs, seraphs, cockatrices, witches, impossibly old people, flying serpents and a lot of other magical mystical nonsense." Wrong on nearly every count. The Bible says the earth is flat, orbits the sun, and nowhere does it every say the earth does not move. I will give you it does talk about Satan, demons, and angels, but what do you expect when you are dealing with the supernatural?

I think the fact that creationists are not afraid to debate evolution in a classroom is proof enough we are not afraid that we cannot give a sound case for creation. You are the ones who don't want the debates, the comparisons in the classroom. Why not? Since evolution obviously a fact, and creation is obviously ridiculous, why do you have such a problem with teachers presenting it in a classroom? No one will believe such nonsense, right?

Boris,

The fact that your 'scientific mind' cannot grasp the concept of how the universe was formed yet you can share your convoluted ideas of how life was conceived through a single-celled organism is beyond the true definition of Science. A lot of people who follow darwinism keep forgetting that Darwin was not even a doctor or a scientist. Oh and back then they didn't know about blood cells, dna or even microbiology and during those times they would do blood transfers using cow blood. Talk about learning the hard way that we're not all the same when wounded died from cow blood infusions. Because your theory cannot begin to explain the complex roles each organism plays in our ecosystem doesn't make my points 'straw man' arguments. It's the fact that your synopsis does not have no support by lack of hard evidence that life was formed by random selection. Maybe you should study the life and history of your guru finder Darwin and learn some truth behind his theories. If you don't want to believe in God that's fine, but when you try to blow your smoke and flash your mirrors in hope of proving everyone but yourself to be ignorant and stupid, I suggest you keep your tricks to yourself and provide hard evidence through microbiology.

Oh by the way, clearly stating based off a simple snippet of my post that I have no idea of science is clear evidence that you were grasping for an excuse to elude yourself from confronting the issues I present which blow away the smoke of evolution and show the mess it really is. Unless you can come up with strong argumentive evidence and not theories, I will not believe a word that comes from your overly breathed arrogant self-centered explanations.

Again I'm sorry for being shrewd, but it seems it's the only way to get through some of that thickness some of darwinists have.

P.S. Todd Bently? Those people mentioned are not Christians. If people would take the time to read the bible and listen to the teachings of the disciples, people would not be fooled by wolves proclaiming to be followers of Christ. Nothing is biblical what they do. Anyone can tote the name of Christ and do all sorts of abominable acts.

The Irony,
You said: The fact that your 'scientific mind' cannot grasp the concept of how the universe was formed yet you can share your convoluted ideas of how life was conceived through a single-celled organism is beyond the true definition of Science.

Boris says: The fact that your superstitious mind cannot grasp the concept of how the universe was formed without invoking supernatural mysticism yet you can share your convoluted ideas of how life was conceived through the magic breath of the God of your particular religious cult is beyond the true definition of logic.

You said: A lot of people who follow darwinism keep forgetting that Darwin was not even a doctor or a scientist. Oh and back then they didn't know about blood cells, dna or even microbiology and during those times they would do blood transfers using cow blood. Talk about learning the hard way that we're not all the same when wounded died from cow blood infusions.

Boris says: Can you tell me when science has ever had to revise one of it's theories in the face of religious and anti-scientific mumbo jumbo from Bible believers just like yourself? You come from the same anti-scientific cult that has denied EVERY scientific discovery ever made ever since there was a Bible. First of all Darwin wasn't the only person who discovered evolution.A bit of procrastination here and a missed train there and it world be Wallace's Theory of Evolution you people would be trying to deny. Our knowledge of how nature structures itself through evolution by natural selection has come a long long way since Wallace and Darwin discovered it. Darwin was wrong about many things. For example he thought that modern humans are descended from Cro-Magnons which is something we now know is not true.

You said: Because your theory cannot begin to explain the complex roles each organism plays in our ecosystem doesn't make my points 'straw man' arguments. It's the fact that your synopsis does not have no support by lack of hard evidence that life was formed by random selection. Maybe you should study the life and history of your guru finder Darwin and learn some truth behind his theories. If you don't want to believe in God that's fine, but when you try to blow your smoke and flash your mirrors in hope of proving everyone but yourself to be ignorant and stupid, I suggest you keep your tricks to yourself and provide hard evidence through microbiology.

Boris says: How does creationism magic even begin to explain the complex roles each organism plays in our ecosystem? Creationism magic has no explanatory powers or any way to increase knowledge now does it? Until creationist magicians can explain HOW their particular sky deity does something their anti-scientific nonsense will remain the butt of jokes for the rest of us. Eventually your children will get sick of ridicule and creationism will finally be crushed by logic and science and most of all - the truth. The Theory of Evolution is not "my" theory. This theory is accepted by over 99 percent of the world's population and every paid working scientist in the world. It is accepted my YOUR particular M.D. It is taught in every public school system in the world, all Catholic schools and every CHRISTIAN college and university in the world that has a real science department. Why don't you tell THEM about your religious delusions that made you throw science out the window as a reasonable explanation for anything.

You said: Oh by the way, clearly stating based off a simple snippet of my post that I have no idea of science is clear evidence that you were grasping for an excuse to elude yourself from confronting the issues I present which blow away the smoke of evolution and show the mess it really is. Unless you can come up with strong argumentive evidence and not theories, I will not believe a word that comes from your overly breathed arrogant self-centered explanations.

Boris says: Since you claim you can "blow away the smoke of evolution and show the mess it really is" why don't you take your case to the scientific community? Why don't any of you creationists do this? You would instantly become very rich and famous and surely win a Nobel Prize for science. For some reason this hasn't happened and it isn't ever going to either is it? Can you explain exactly why that is please? Your explanations are a riot. This one should be REALLY good.

You said: Again I'm sorry for being shrewd, but it seems it's the only way to get through some of that thickness some of darwinists have.

Boris says: What you are claiming is that you know more about evolutionary biology that biologists themselves and that they are thick! And you also claim to know about cosmology than modern cosmologists! The arrogance and ignorance that it takes to make those ridiculous claims is just off the charts. People like you exist only in the USA and you people have made this country the laughingstock of the rest of the world.

You said: P.S. Todd Bently? Those people mentioned are not Christians.

It's amazing how you people turn your back on your own and claim they aren't "true Christians," like you do with your devout Christian brothers Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini, as soon as public opinion sways against them because of something they've done.

You said: If people would take the time to read the bible and listen to the teachings of the disciples, people would not be fooled by wolves proclaiming to be followers of Christ. Nothing is biblical what they do. Anyone can tote the name of Christ and do all sorts of abominable acts.

"American Atheists has always encouraged the public to read both the Old and New Testaments from cover to cover. Many people become atheists after reading the Bible." - Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov, Russia-born biochmeist.

From the comments by both sides in the religion vs science debate it seems to me that both sides often misunderstand the other and the true nature of the issue. The so called Fundamentalist Christians like ms. Palin who espouse views that often fly in the face of accepted science unfortunatly seem to get all the media attention and thus to non christians make all other believers seem equally ignorant. On the other hand, it isnt very scientific for non christians to dismiss the spiritual beliefs of all christians based on the very small sample of christianity displayed in a frankly biased media. The literal interpretation faction of christians unfortunatly cannot separate the message of God from the medium in which it was originally presented in the majority of the Old Testament. When you explain creation to someone 3,500 years ago you can't very well use the language of quantum mechanics so you just say " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." God speaks to man at the level we can understand at the appropriate time in history and thousands of years ago that level was symbolic and mythic not scientific. Thus to cling to the outward symbol rather than the inner truth, God's love for all His creation, is to miss the point. On the other hand , I have no problem believing that Christ was God incarnate, he died and rose again and is the Savior of mankind , and also believing in evolution and all other modern scientific theories concerning the origin of the universe. Rather than being mutually exclusive, I view religion and science as being basically unrelated. Science is about explaining the temporal and everchanging physical universe, using the physical intelligence God gave us. Religion is about understanding, obeying and ultimately being united with God, who by definition is non temporal,unchanging , infinite and spiritual rather than physical like ordinary matter. Thus when we interact with God we do so in a very different manner and on a diffewrnt level of awareness than we do when we interact with the physical world. Since the spiritual interaction can only be percieved by the one experiencing it, non believers often deny its reality, but in doing so they display the same ignorance as the Old Testament literalists. Both are afraid to let go of their misperceptions due to a lack of knowledge, faith or experience. Only when the literalists learn to only have faith in Christ and His message rather than being trapped in the mythology of the Bible will they be accepted in modern society. Conversely, only when a non believer accepts Christ as his personal savior and truly submits to God's will can they experience and thus understand the joy of " walking with the Lord."

Time for a body count. On this particular thread alone I have soundly defeated 4 creationists and one other Christian in debates. Not only that, these people have refused to answer the questions I posed to them. These people are Ann L. on Sept 1 1:18 AM; Jerry on Sept 1 9:11 PM; Andy G. on Sept 4 at 11:46 AM; Irony on Sept 6 at 8:22 and 9:07 PM; Steve on Sept 7 1:51.

Do any of you posters have anything to say for yourselves? Is this how you debate? Run and hide?

Boris,

Time for a reality check...
1. If you'd read some of my earlier posts, you would know that while I believe Christians should be involved in the community & how our country is run, I don't believe it should be 'top-priority' above our relationship to God and what He's led each of us to do in our lives. You'd also know that I have the high priority of raising a special-needs child...a blessing I don't expect you'd be able to understand. As a result, I'm not on here on a daily basis...having more important things to concern me. So, I never read any questions from you...did you really ask one?

2. You're the only person ecstatic in your supposed 'defeat' of others. For one thing, I am not defeated by your tirades. Your words and actions have only proven what students of Bible prophecy already know about the time in which we're living. That you don't believe it, doesn't change that we are living in the end of this age on Earth. (And we've been in the 'church age' for 2,000 years...only recently has Bible prophecy concerning the end of the age {Last Days} been fulfilled)
Neither am I humiliated...I feel two things after reading some of the comments: concern for the amount of deception in our society today and pity for all of those who are happily choosing to drown in it.

3. This IS supposed to be a place for open discussion as mentioned in the comment above...HOWEVER, in your posts I only see someone who is on a vendetta to attack & try to destroy anyone who is a Christian. You come across as someone who does not really want to DISCUSS ideas & beliefs with anyone...just belittle.
I learned a long time ago that you can't talk to someone who only wants to beat you up. I can share my perspective with anyone here who seems to really be open to listening & discussing topics...but why would anyone want to waste time talking to a brick being flung in their direction...perhaps that's really why those others didn't respond to you either???

4. I'll refer you again to the question in Sheila's comment. HAVE YOU EVER LISTENED (with an open mind) to anyone who has personally experienced something...who has a personal relationship with God...and it's changed their life? It is true that arguments can't defeat experience....
Better yet, why not accept a challenge? Just between you and the God you don't think exists. Open your mind to the chance that there could be a supreme being who has all the TRUE answers...who knows all the things you could ever question. Forget 'religion'...that's just men trying to attain God anyway. Forget what you've been told the Bible says; be willing to be taught anew.
Open your mind and SINCERELY speak these words: "God, if you really exist as the Christians claim, then You know everything, including that I don't believe in You and why I don't. If you're real, you'd also know what it would take to reach through my current beliefs and convince me that I'm wrong. So, IF You and the Bible are really true, I want you to prove it to me."
Then research the Bible itself; use a concordance; study the works of professional scientists who state that true scientific research supports what the Bible says and see why they say that; read the experiences of people who've set out to scientifically disprove God or the Bible and how they discovered Him; etc.... If you do that (truly willing to be proven wrong if you are)...then you will be on your way to experiencing truth (in everything).

IF you're right, what have you lost? absolutely nothing. You'll die someday and that will be the end of it.
...BUT if I'm right and God DOES exist, think of what you'd lose by refusing to acknowledge Him...then think of what you could've gained by this simple little experiment. All it takes is the courage to seek the TRUTH...DO YOU HAVE IT??? I sincerely hope so...but that's entirely up to you, isn't it?

Ann and Boris,
I can understand in a sense what Boris is saying in the fact, that as a child I also would question, believing that if there was really a God of the Universe, then there must be more to HIM than what I am witnessing. I remember also thinking as a young teenager..."God, if there is really a you, then I would like to know YOU for who YOU really are..." Like I said before... there is NO ARGUMENT against an EXPERIENCE. Things then become... "I know, that I know, that I know..."
Boris, Your mother must have prayed for you alot.... though you may think it was in vain. Did she ever change her views? Just asking...
Ann, I love your heart and spirit. There is those out there that would love to hear what you have to say.
I don't know when or if I will be back on this site... but it has been interesting visiting here.

Ann,
You said: So how do you explain to anyone who hasn't experienced it, that there's Christianity and then, there's CHRISTIANITY? One is the man-made, organized religion and one is the personal, life-changing, spiritual connection with GOD.

Boris says: There is no such thing as a loner Christian in the Bible. So you’re not a follower of Jesus unless you fellowship in a church with other believers. According to the Bible, Christians are supposed to be part of a community of Christians and especially a church. By definition that is a religion. Religion has such a bad reputation Christians these days try to claim they aren’t really religious. You're embarrassed by your religion and all the crazies in it, but won't admit it.

You said: I understand, Boris, that you have an intellectual knowledge of what the Bible says. Have you EVER been open to finding out what truths lie beyond your current intellectual knowledge? If so, accept the challenge posted earlier.

Boris says: Your version of truth and mine are radically different.

You said: Those who criticize the Intelligent Design Model (ID) for our existence often argue that ID is not science simply because its proponents may have religious beliefs/affiliations. This kind of attack is hypocritical and illogical.

1.ID is a scientific-based argument, not a faith-based one. ID has scientific merit because it uses well accepted scientific methods to detect the kinds of complexity in nature which comes from intelligence and not chance.

Boris says: Science isn’t done with preconceived notions such that things are designed nor do scientists look for evidence to prove a certain point. That is pseudo-science – the nonsense that dupes badly misinformed people.

You said: If it were (as some claim) only a recitation of religious teachings, then it wouldn't stand up to anything scientific...yet in reality - it does.

Boris says: ID is not a scientific theory for four reasons. First, ID's advocates do not set aside explanations that are beyond human reason, as the nature of science requires. Scientists refrain from considering God's actions in their work. Instead they use observation, experimentation, prevailing scientific theory, mathematics, logical arguments, strict empirical standards, heuristics, and healthy skepticism to produce knowledge. Scientific theories are therefore explanations about aspects of nature without reference to God. This means they are natural, and we call this context methodological naturalism.
Second, ID's advocates spend their time, resources, and energy criticizing and distorting the character of evolution in particular and science in general. One example is their claim that science practiced as methodological naturalism is atheistic. The methodological naturalism of scientific work and knowledge does not mean that scientific work and knowledge are atheistic
Third a useful scientific theory will be modified or replaced only when a new theory is proposed and documented through scientific work to explain and predict as much or more. Until this happens, ID has no place in school science.
Fourth, the motivation, strategy, and behavior of ID advocates are not scientific. This point can be clarified with a metaphor. Standing in line is perhaps a universal experience. Meal lines, grocery cashier lines, driver's license lines, and auto license plates lines are all too familiar experiences that sometimes test our patience. What do folks who are waiting in line think when someone cuts in line? Their thoughts are probably neither positive nor charitable. ID doctrine and its advocates are attempt ting to cut in line. Biological evolution stood in line for over 140 years to become the single accepted a scientific theory for explaining the observed diversity and underlying unity of living organisms. Standing in line means that evolution has been thoroughly and repeatedly examined through accepted scientific work, which shows that evolution explains the observed diversity and underlying unity of living organisms very well, but not completely. standing in line also means that scientists use evolution to make an extensive variety of accurate predictions. Such work has provided humans with antibiotics, vaccines, and better foods. ID advocates have not generated acceptable scientific work, nor have they set forth accurate predictions based on their work; their theoretical proposal is to an audience of citizens, not to the scientific community. A central strategy of ID advocates appeal to the public is to charge that scientists are unfair, biased, close-minded, and protective of a bankrupt theory. The scientific community has responded, and continues to respond, by pointing out that the advocates of ID doctrine are attempting to cut in line by not conducting and reporting acceptable scientific work.

You said: If it were just a religious teaching, then what about cases such as this: Antony Flew was an atheist who stated in 2004 that he was now convinced that "the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Boris says: Anthony Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist. Who cares what he thinks about biological evolution?

You said: They'd believe that it would fall apart as soon as it was looked at. The only logical reason for them being against doing this is that lurking somewhere deep within them is the certainty that when they're scientifically compared (side by side), intelligent people will see & believe the truths of ID - scientifically proven.

Boris says: None of the claims of intelligent design proponents, especially the work of its primary “theorists,” biochemist Michael Behe and theologian William Dembski, have stood up under scientific scrutiny. Not only have their arguments been shown to be flawed, but also in several instances the factual claims on which they rest have been proven false. None of their work has been published in respected scientific journals.

You said: Even Darwin died not believing that his "Theory" was real truth.

Boris says: The truth is that scientists have already proven his theory as being wrong. They did this by giving each "step" of man a DNA test. Does this mean that Charles Darwin is now a laughing stock? By all means no. If it wasn't for Charles Darwin bringing up this theory, we may never have thought about this option. Charles Darwin came up with a good foundation on which to build a new branch of science.

One thing that makes me think that these "creation scientists" have never even studied Darwin's theories is the fact that on the very first couple of pages, in the introduction, of Origin of Species Charles Darwin says the following quotes.

"My work now (1859) is nearly finished, but it will take me many years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this Abstract."
As we know an Abstract is not much more than an outline, or introduction. To take this book as fact is in great error, for it's not completed work.

"This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt some errors have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting good authorities alone."
In other words, this book isn't complete, the theory hasn't been fully researched, and there is a great deal more work left. Not to mention there may be false leads that have yet to be weeded out. In other words... not even Darwin himself was confident of his works on evolution.

Not only did Darwin think he was right, but neither did scientists, they furthered his studies and continued to do so with the help of technology, until they disproved it. So never was there a time that a true scientist said "Darwin's theory of evolution is right, without a doubt." So if a creation scientist tells you this, you know that they are lying to you.

You said: In fact, the vast majority of early scientists were Christians who scientifically proved many things that we now know are fact. They were proven right...not because their work had been inspired by religious beliefs, but because the scientifically researched evidence supported those facts. And so today, the science of intelligent design cannot be ignored simply because of any religious beliefs of those who work in this field of science.

Boris says: There is a big difference between Christian like Galileo or Newton and literal Bible believers. Fundamentalist Christians fail to point out that every scientific discovery ever made ever since there was a Bible has been denied and fought against by literal Bible believers even the ones made by other Christians.

“In the discussion of natural problems we ought not to begin with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.” – Galileo Galilei.
There isn’t a fundamentalist Bible believing born-again Christian who would agree with Galileo even today, now is there?

You said: 3. Any person can choose to agree or not agree with the conclusions scientifically drawn by the ID model. What you can't logically or realistically do is claim that ID is nothing more than religious ideas.

Boris says: Sure. Then why are ALL the ID writers evangelical Christians? Why is that all these people can do is present arguments? Science isn’t done with arguments but with experiments and demonstrations. ID hoaxers can’t do any of these can they?

You said: Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Boris says: The error of this argument is that, once again using backward logic, ID cites an example of modern life – the result of four billion years of cellular evolution – the asks how such a complicated structure could randomly pop into existence. Needless to say, such complexity couldn’t randomly pop into existence, and no origin-of-life researcher ever made such an outlandish proposal. ID arguments appealing to the DNA sequence are empty straw men. The first cells had no DNA. They reproduced their simple forms merely by division – by falling apart.

Now answer this question: When has science ever had to revise one of its theories in the face of religious claims?