Okay, maybe the title is a little dramatic, but I think I may just include this as a daily…or near-daily post.
Are Christians Mentally Ill? From Answers in Genesis
www.4thought.tv: “Should creationism be taught in schools? ”
Creationists are accused of conspiring to create intellectual prisoners. Philosophy lecturer Stephen Law makes vociferous accusations there, offering curious criteria for mental illness. Law, calls creationism “pernicious scientific nonsense.”
He says: “Teaching creationism in any class as fact is to teach children things which we know not to be true.”
Leftists who have it in for Christians and try to assert that their so-called science trumps the bible and what the Bible says about creation – are like Lysenko biologists; who were politically driven scientists who were more about politics than science. More often than not, the critics of creationist theory belong to the Church of Global Warming, which takes a lot more ‘blind faith’ to believe in than it does to believe in the Bible.
Creationists never teach creationism as fact, that I have seen or witnessed. But this Stephen Law with no theological background and no scientific background takes pleasure in asserting that they do.
What Creationists seek is the truth. It’s there in the Bible, and it’s there in science if you apply the scientific method. Unfortunately today, the scientific method isn’t used because they posit a conclusion and back their ‘facts’ into that conclusion, and throw out anything that doesn’t fit. (Just like Trofim Lysenko.)
Something other than the theory of evolution should be taught in schools, which would allow and encourage a child or a young adult to think about it and weigh out the different ideas, based on their merits. And that’s what leftists really are afraid of, because the theory of evolution is a victorian-era myth that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
But much like leftists on Global Warming they want the world to believe that the Theory of Evolution is all that is out there, case closed. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed explains how intellectual diversity is met in the classroom on this subject, and even in the scientific community. The debate is over, they say. Teaching Intelligent Design, as an example, as opposed to the Theory of Evolution, or perhaps all three together (because Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the same)- we would be offering our children true intellectual diversity, which is what education is supposed to be about.
Evolution is, in fact, taught in schools as ‘fact’ when there is much evidence that points to the problems with the theory. To my knowledge, those problems are not explored or even touched upon in classrooms. Evidence used to push the theory turned out to be falsified, such as the skull of piltdown man, which turned out to be a human skull coupled with the jaw of an orangutan. Then there is the peppered moths myth, but remember – this is just a color variation within a specie. These moths didn’t mutate into elephants or anything else. And vestigial organs are not remnants of evidence of evolution; those organs actually have a purpose. And the list keeps getting longer.
Consider that there are missing transitional forms in the fossil record. or that dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own; life suddenly emerging out of dead chemicals never occurred in any experiment in a laboratory. And design is apparent in the world around us. Mutations never improve a life form. Or…take the second law of thermodynamics as another. The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured.
Those problems among others should be exposed and given the light of day in the classrooms. The theory of evolution, after all, is not a fact, it is a theory.
Go to the Institute for Creation Research and see what creation scientists really say with examples of the scientific evidence available that points to a 6,000 year old new earth, rather than what a ‘philosopher’ who likes to hear himself talk, says.
Answers in Genesis said it very well:
Answers in Genesis has never suggested teachers of any persuasion be forced to teach creationism but rather has always maintained students and teachers should have academic freedom to critically examine scientific facts and the worldviews by which they are interpreted. Learning to exercise discernment when presented with facts and interpretations frees the intellect, not imprisons it.
Here’s another disgusting news bit that makes my skin crawl.
Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military
(CNSNews.com) – (Updated) The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals–or bestiality.
On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
It states: “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Permitting bestiality along with sodomy…? And in the military? What are these people smoking?
And here’s another:
Unlicensed Doc Pleads Guilty to Killing Babies in Philly Abortion Case
The medical school graduate who admitted to snapping the necks of at least 100 moving and breathing babies born in Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic pleaded guilty to third-degree murder in the deaths of two late-term babies.
Steven Massof, 49, of Pittsburgh, pleaded guilty on Thursday to two counts of third-degree murder, murder conspiracy and other charges.
Massof testified to a grand jury that he regularly delivered babies whose mothers were induced, snipped the umbilical cords and then cut the babies’ spinal cords, as it was “standard procedure.”
When asked how often this happened, Massof answered:
“More times than I really care to remember. I would have to say every week it would happen to at least 50 percent of the patients.”
Those are the main three that have really galled me over the last few days…
I’m sure there will be more coming up soon.






















You don’t get evolution at all do you? That is the only reason I can think of for your ‘butterflies don’t turn into elephants’ line.
Oh, and entropy is not the same as evolution. You can’t compare the two.
sim-o(Quote)
Think about it, brain trust. Dead chemicals would have to spring to life. Then, one-celled organisms would have to ‘evolve’ into all different species. But there is no evidence of any transitional forms in the fossil record, they suddenly appear. A donkey could be in the forest, and when he comes out, he is still a donkey. He’d never turn into a giraffe. That is what modern genetics did for us – demonstrated how impossible it would be for all the species of the world to ‘evolve’.
As far as the 2nd law of thermodynamics – …which is spelled out there…you apparently don’t “get” too many laws of physics. But then you’re not about understanding what it is I’m talking about, you appeared in comments to ridicule what I’m saying.
To take a little bit from Evan:
And you’re right, I do not “get” evolution at all, because there are too many problems that Darwin himself acknowledged. “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” (from a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)
What I absolutely love about Evan’s observations is this part, which really points to the problem with evolutionists’ theory in terms of – is evolution a philosophy, or science? It’s no wonder that the atheist philosophy lecturer Stephen Law so willingly defends it:
TEN REASONS WHY EVOLUTION IS WRONG (from Evan)
1. Introduction
1a Microevolution Defined
2. Reason 1 Genetics is not Evolution’s Friend
2a Were Darwin’s Galapagos Finches Evolution?
2b What About Mutations
2c Population Genetics Factors
2d Beneficial verses Positive Mutations
2e Molecular Biology and Irreducible Complexity
2f Do Hox (Homeotic) Genes Save Evolution?
2g Evolution Fails to Predict Genetic Complexity
3. Reason 2 Statistics is not Evolution’s Friend
3a A Short Primer on Probability
3b Weasely Dawkins
4. Reason 3 Biochemistry is not Evolution’s Friend
4a. Primitive Atmospheres
4b Sydney Fox’s Protenoids?
4c The Problem with Chirality
4d Outer Space?
5. Reason 4 Information Theory is not Evolution’s Friend
5a Complex Life Information verses Simple Information
5b Specified Complexity
6. Reason 5 Physics is not Evolution’s Friend
6a The Laws of Thermodynamics
6b Entropy and Evolution
7. Reason 6 Astronomy is not Evolution’s Friend
7a How Old is the Universe?
7b Strange Quasar – Galaxy Connections
7c What do Extra Solar Planets Tell us?
7d What About the Sun?
7e What do the Planets in our Solar System tell us?
7f The Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt
8. Reason Number 7 Paleontology is not Evolution’s Friend
8a The Cambrian Explosion
8b Problems with the Fossil Record
8c Those Pesky Transitional Fossils
8d Bird Evolution
8e Tetrapod Evolution Fact or Fancy
8f A Whale of a Tale
8g Horse Evolution
8h Hominid Evolution or Paleoanthropology
8i Hall of Hoaxes
8j Recent Finds or is Lucy Really a Lady?
8k What Are They Thinking?
9. Reason Number 8 Radiometric Dating is not Evolution’s Friend
9a What is Radiometric Dating?
9b Some Dating Games
9c What About Carbon Dating?
9d Are Decay Rates Constant?
10. Reason Number 9 Evolutionists are not Evolution’s Friends
10a Neo-Darwinism
Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Sanders
George Gaylord Simpson
Francis Crick
Richard Dawkins
Stephen Jay Gould
Pierre Grasse
Fred Hoyle
Robert Jastrow
Roger Lewin
Richard Lewontin
Ernst Mayr
Colin Patterson
Michale Ruse
W.R. Thompson
George Wald
10b Paleontology
George Gaylord Simpson
Richard Dawkins
Niles Eldredge
Stephen Jay Gould
Pierre Grasse
Richard Leaky
Ernst Mayr
Colin Patterson
W.R. Thompson
10c Ernst Haeckel – Apostle of Deceit
11. Reason Number 10 Morality is not Evolution’s Friend
11a Is Evolution Science or Philosophy?
11b So What if Evolution is an Atheistic Philosophy?
11c The Cartesian Divide and The Kantian Contradiction
11d The Blood Drenched Century of Evolution
11e What About Hitler?
11f What About Stalin?
11g What About Mao?
Cao(Quote)
Apparently, Professor Law attempted to leave a comment on this site with this link: xxx is there any reason why you choose not to share it with your readers? Best, TAM.
The Atheist Missionary(Quote)
I’ve already answered that question. Why do you not refer to the rude comment he left along with the link?
\”Yeh, let’s string up this leftwing atheist commie punk for insisting the Earth is older than 6 thousand years.”
What a wonderful way to introduce himself. Sure makes me want to converse with him!
NOT!
Of course, he can’t prove that I advocate what he’s referring to…it’s a provocation.
So why do you and the other blind followers of Stephen Law think you have the right to force me to spread his message?
I merely made a commentary on his atheist materialist nonsense, which I am free to do on the space I pay for. (See above.)
He already posted at his own blog the comment he left along with his precious link you all seem so desperate to plant in my comments section, along with the assumption that the comment would never be published. I don’t see any reason to give him linkage, therefore, LINKAGE DENIED.
Cao(Quote)
Ok, as far as evolution goes, there are two sites you really need to read, though I’m certain you won’t bother:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ (the Index to Creationist Claims) You really need to read this one!
Reynold(Quote)
LOL. You really are quite desperate with your intolerance of my views and the real science behind them.
I mentioned before that there is no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Apparently you’re not able to connect the dots, so let me do a little connecting for you.
Michael Denton, an evolutionist, acknowledges in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis that the central problem with Darwinism is that no direct empirical evidence exists in the way of a continuous series of intermediates between taxa.
“ There is no doubt that as far as his macroevolutionary claims were concerned Darwin’s central problem in the Origin lay in the fact that he had absolutely no direct empirical evidence in the existence of clear-cut intermediates that evolution on a major scale had ever occurred and that any of the major divisions of nature had been crossed gradually through a sequence of transitional forms.” -Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler. 1986, p56
On Macroevolution:
Mutations never improve a life form, they are almost always harmful. The idea of mutations improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.
RH Byles boils it down for us:
1. Natural selection works against fixation of mutations–in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. In order for macroevolution to happen, it would, of course, mutations would have to become part of the gene pool. Big problem for the theory of Evolution, and that’s just for starters.
2. A requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it provides no structural changes to an organism, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more “fit” than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less “fit” because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.
3. In order for mutations to “stick”, recurrent mutations must be retained in a population; they would have to be, if macroevolution were true, unidirectional. Unfortunately for evolutionists, these three criteria are not met in order for mutations to “advance” in a population. The mutational event would have to be recurrent and, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant, and recurrent mutations would have to block the possibility of mutation back to its original form. None of this happens.
4. The frequency rate of mutations would have to be great. Unfortunately for evolutionists, that is not observed in populations. The frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation.” Obviously, with a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary.
5. The population would have to be very large, because if the population were small, mutations could wipe out that population (because of the tendency for mutations to be negative and not improve a life form.) Consider mutations in humans that cause severe problems like Downs Syndrome. Evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem here, but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. As population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases. And if it is cross breeding, it isn’t evolution, it’s creating hybrids…which are sterile.
6. For organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. This doesn’t happen, either.
7. No hybridizing admixture. The only way to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts the fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene’s being eliminated rises steeply. This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.
8. Genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four. Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But the third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can’t fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can’t fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.
9. “The phenotype must have high heritability.” This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is “very low.”
TALLYING THE SCORE
It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.
From Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution by by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
Cao(Quote)