Possibly the Best Example of the Delusion of Creationism That You Might Ever See

creation-museumI wasn’t going to do another one of these articles following the first response I got to my 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist.  But after receiving an email from another creationist who decided to answer my 10 questions, I felt the need to share.  Though I had to read through the email twice just to allow my brain to fully process the insanity that I had just read.

To be fair, this person at least seems to possess a basic understanding of the English language, unlike the last person who responded to all 10 questions.  You might even say they sound somewhat intelligent if it weren’t for their contradictions, hypocrisy and general insanity.  What follows is their complete unedited email.  Enjoy.

This article demonstrates a brand of propaganda that is becoming more and more common in secular media circles. I see it in the science journals and presentations from scientists like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins, main stream news, promoted by popular social critics like Bill Maher and used in opinion pieces which attack Christianity.

It basically works like this. They present their position as fact based on the principle that science only deals in facts. They then answer their own questions from the most extreme and hysterical position that is supposed to represent what a Christian thinks. For example Bill Maher is notorious for sighting Old Testament laws about stoning people for seemingly trivial offenses and trying to apply that to Christian thinking, belief and doctrine.

The above article is a classic example of how the scientific dictatorship is manipulating the conversation by portraying Christians as irrational and uneducated zealots. Yes I purposefully use the word “dictatorship” because that is the best definition for someone that deems to tell us how things are because they say so. Science always claims to have the facts on their side while Christians are portrayed as delusional simpletons who are still bumbling around with a Dark Ages mentality.

“Well so what?” you say, this isn’t news it’s been like this for a long time, they are fools, who cares what they say. Although that may be true to a certain extent I would argue that the assault has never been more insistent or widely spread throughout society. It is dangerous for us to ignore this trend in culture.

We must consider those who have not come to know Christ will most likely side with an easy rational explanation when the alternative is presented in such a ridiculous fashion. For those Christians who are able, I believe it is our responsibility to familiarize ourselves with these tactics so that we can expose them for what they are when we are confronted by them. By doing so we will be able to keep the conversation from getting derailed and be better able to lead others to Jesus.

Here is my response to the 10 questions presented in the article. I encourage you to think how you would respond and be ready to give that response when the situation presents itself.

1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?

Faith is a strongly held belief that does not require absolute evidence in order to be considered true. Science is a general term used to describe mankind’s efforts to explain the nature of reality across many different fields and disciplines. By using the Scientific Method to legitimize the findings, scientists demonstrate that their experiments can be replicated independently by anyone and the results will be the same.

2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?

The Bible tells us that Noah lived to be over 900 years old and this I believe to be true. Although some people claim to have worked out the age of the earth by counting up all the ages and years indicated in the Old and New Testament I have not and don’t consider the issue to be of profound relevance to my faith in God. I do however believe that it is entirely possible that the Universe as we know it could very well be extraordinarily young. Modern science is unable to adequately counter a young Earth position. Old Earth theories require just as much faith as young ones do.

3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?

Christians know that God doesn’t work this way. God created mankind in his image and gave them free will to choose to worship him. To simply give Noah a ready-made Ark defeats his desire to have a relationship with us. God wants us to experience this world through him so he can experience it through us.

4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?

There are many examples of human remains and relics being found buried as deeply or deeper than dinosaur bones. This fact is widely ignored and goes unreported by the scientific community because it contradicts their official narrative of evolution. It is also proof of the Great Flood.

5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books. Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible. If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?

Unfortunately this statement is not true. Science has been co-opted by the world economic and political power system. Scientists rely on funding. Power agendas rely on facts to support them. Scientists who provide “evidence” to advance an agenda get the money and the awards. Those who dedicate themselves to pure scientific truth, regardless of the consequences, are often isolated on the fringes. Rule #1 is: You get the science you pay for. Our greatest scientists were mavericks who threw the rule book out the window and went their own direction.

Only one man was able to obey all of God’s laws and that was his Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom we worship. The Bible is not meant to tell us how old the Earth is. It is God’s word written by his chosen to tell us how to live rightly through Him.

6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?

It is incorrect to make the statement that these things are all connected and share the same level of acceptance as established fact in science. That is simply not true.

The methods used by science to determine both the age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution are questionable. One is used to support the other and vice versa. The age of the fossil is determined by the layer of rock it is found in. The age of the layer of rock is determined by the fossils which it contains. Other methods such as radio carbon dating have proven unreliable by giving false dating information on known objects. Science has never been able to demonstrate evolution by showing evidence of transitional forms. Despite changes, birds remain birds, plants remain plants etc.

Gravity is a mysterious force that is not fully understood by any scientific body despite its obvious and demonstrable existence. The main problem with it is that it is such a weak force, it should not be able to affect matter as much as it appears to.

Photosynthesis is a true example of applying the Scientific Method to something to understand how it works. It is a great example of observational science applied to our natural world.

7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible? Then how do you know what it really said?

One of the most important discoveries of the 20th Century was the Dead Sea Scrolls. By comparing them to modern Bibles we were able to see how faithfully scholars have been translating the word of God for more than 2000 years. Modern archeology also continues to confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible.

8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?

We will all die someday. The important thing for Christians is how we live and glorify God and build a personal relationship with Jesus and each other. God has set a limit on our life span of 120 years. Those who seek to live beyond this limit through the use of science will have to break their covenant with God. They will corrupt their humanity and be rejected by God.

9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong. Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?

Throughout human history our authorities have tried to tell us what to think and to believe despite our own convictions and God’s Devine truth. It is very likely that many of the people who promoted the idea that the Earth was the center of the Universe were the “scientists” of the day. Science continually proves itself to be in error through the process of discovery and innovation. Amazingly though, as science advances it continually confirms the truth of the Bible.

Evolution fails the scientific test of being observable; proponents of this theory are unwilling to address the most glaring deficiency which is to explain how the enormous diversity of life as we know it originated from non-living matter. To call something “science” does not automatically make it indisputably true and factual. Scientific truths are constantly disproved, God’s truth is eternal.

10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future?

The Bible has been vindicated many times over by scientific discoveries that confirm what it has said all along. For example The Big Bang is a recently (less than 100 years) accepted theory that confirms the 1st words of the Bible which says that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” Many more examples can be found which confirm scientific discoveries in agriculture, ecology, chemistry, physics, biology, genetics; every branch of science is represented if you are inclined to look. The Bible is a timeless book that will always be relevant to human beings, no matter what time period they exist in. No other book has stood the test of time to remain relevant like the Word of God.

Better than scientific predictions, the Bible is prophetic. Science comes and goes yet the human condition remains the same. Christians know many things about what will happen in the future according to the Bible. Scientific discoveries will not be able to change the outcome of Biblical prophesies but rather will reaffirm them.

Here is a specific prediction based on Biblical prophecy. Rev:13/16-18, the mark of the beast.

Revelation 13:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

What we can expect is that technology and power agendas will combine to destroy the financial system in order to make cash money obsolete. Without hard currency people will be forced to take a mark which will allow them to buy and sell in order to survive. All people and financial transactions will be tracked by a sinister ruling power that serves the will of Satan. Whether it does so intentionally or not is irrelevant. This will be the very definition of the scientific dictatorship and people will be able to scientifically prove it through the discovery of the number 666.

This prophecy means that science will be used to develop a cashless economic banking control system whose exchanges are done through a bio-technological interface that all people in society must be fitted with. Eventually they will want this to happen at birth without the persons consent. The flood gates will open and Bio-tech will become more and more pervasive in society. They will promote cures for disease, designer babies and children’s protection issues, bio-enhancements that will make people “super-human” etc. any excuse to get people to accept the mark of the beast. Once the doors are opened there will be no turning back.

This is how it was in the days of Noah. God’s creation had become corrupted by the schemes of Lucifer and the fallen angels. Only Noah and his family had the pure genetic lineage needed to carry on the line of men which would result in the birth of God’s Son Jesus. So God destroyed the Earth with the Great Flood and started over.

When society returns to similar conditions which provoked the wrath of God in the time of Noah, faithful believers will rejoice in the fact that the return of Jesus is at hand. Scientific understanding is a gift and a tool of intellect that God gave to us so that we might better come to know and understand Him. Those who would use science to corrupt God’s creation and turn mankind away from Him will be dealt with most harshly through His Devine judgment so that they will wish that they had never been born.

And there you have it, folks.  After reading that, I really don’t think there’s much of a need for an in-depth response from me.  Were you able to keep up with all of the contradictions and hypocrisy?  My favorite was how they claimed Noah lived to be 900 years old, but then claimed God has set a limit on our lives of 120 years.  What was your favorite?  Let me know in the comments section below.  Bonus points for anybody who wants to spend time dissecting the whole email – you’ve got more patience for insanity than I do.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Michael O’Brien

    I’m with you on the willingness to point out the delusional insanity from an obviously well read individual.

  • Preacher son

    Religious zealots, no matter what faith they hold to, will never be swayed from their “faith”. It’s futile. I love to repeat my father, a preacher, who said way back in the 50’s that science tells us how and the Bible tells us why. Even this statement does not get a Christian to go, “hum, maybe there’s something to that.” And boy do I ever hope I don’t live to be 120 + one day. This dude says I’ll be rejected by God because I lived a good, clean and healthy life. HA

    • Stryder04

      I love what your father said “science tells us how and the Bible tells us why” I am going to have to remember that as well as this one I heard from my friend “there is a big difference between followers of Christ and Christians”

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      It is funny how they will pull things out of their imaginations like that age limit “convent with god” and speak of it as absolutely factual. They often have that same trait of lying with honor on most of the things they claim comes from their book. Being that false witness they are commanded not to be. To be honest, just the fact that a christian speaks of a christ as true and real is being a false witness to that claim. They know there is no real proof, and why they always will fall back to the fact that it is just their ‘faith’ in that word that counts. they will admit there’s no proof at all, yet speak of it as real. That is an honorable liar for you. In another phrase, a Bold Faced Liar.

      • Christ is a historic fact.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        I love your liar sources. The hebrews made it all up. Your torah, bible and koran are equally frauds committed by past hebrews. Just to make themselves feel important and the center of all things when they are not. They describe their god and creation as a huge mistake. Their god had no clue what would take place and they also tell that it takes a Man to fix their gods errors. A man for cryin out loud! My God, makes no mistakes and my God needs nobodies help.

    • Preacher son

      I grew up using The Scofield Reference Bible, “King James Version”. There’s probably more footnotes and references then actual text. These scholars had no problem with science and Genesis. They understood that the reference of the word “day” meant the beginning and end of a period. “The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geological ages.” .Oh, buy the way this a was copy righted in 1909.

  • Stryder04

    The writer answered question #7 by saying that the scrolls they found prove how accurate the Bible is to the original. He forgot to mention that the monks copying the scrolls left out many chapter that THEY thought were irrelevant or not politically acceptable at the time. They have never been added back in and people like the writer will swear that someone, somewhere doctored the scrolls. But then that would disprove the writer because that would mean the scrolls are not accurate and therefore can not be used to confirm the accuracy of the Bible. I am a believer, in Jesus and God, however I also believe the Bible is more a history book with fables to teach lessons to believers. Like history books of today, the Bible, though written by chosen ones, they were still imperfect humans writing what they experienced seen through their own eyes. And like today, three people can read the exact same excerpt from the bible and all see something different, same with the ones who wrote the bible. Read Mathew, Mark, Luck and John, they all saw the same events yest they all have different interpretations of those events.

    I also wondered if Noah lived to be 900 how come we now can only live to 120. Where did he find that in the bible? I never saw it, even when I attended Bible College.

    • Cat Marcuri

      Very well put! While I am not a Christian, I was raised in the faith, and I did a LOT of reading of the Bible before I eventually rejected it as literal truth. I have nothing against people having faith, I know how necessary it is for most people to have something to believe in. But to deny science simply because you’re not a scientist and don’t really get it all (I don’t, for example, but I’m not a scientist) seems to be lunacy. My grandmother was a very devout Christian. But she accepted science as truth because, as she put it, “Who are we to say HOW God chose to do something?” Scientists are starting to understand the world, which was something those ancient people did not. If God chose evolution to create the world and its inhabitants, how would those people long ago have known that? The Bible CANNOT be “literal truth”, simply because there are too many errors in it.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Remember when they burned that woman because she would get static build up and zap people all the time.

      • lindylou

        In reference to you get the science you pay for: A couple years ago I bought my husband an Asus pad, he wanted the I pad but it was too expensive. After he looked up something, and was disappointed in the information, he grumbled that he would have gotten better information if he had the more expensive model: It took a world of patience to explain to him that there is no Apple Internet, vs another internet. True story.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        When I would mention to non-computer users about the real side of big news stories, they would ask “if I got that from the internets?” I would of could have to say yes, but add that Cornell University is a great site for law and other legal information. It all depends on how you use it and for what.

        What I said before, was a link to witch burners of the past that would do so today if not for the laws against that.

    • Julie Wickstrom

      The Creationist made some of that up.

  • Andy Kinnard

    What’s scariest to me is how he starts slipping off into end times and dominionist fantasies at the end. That stuff is scary religious zealotry.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      They are a Death Cult after all.

    • Kevin Nivek Murphy

      sadly, that’s what joe average doesn’t see. The whole “get your reward after you are dead” religious angle should be a no brainer “F U” response by any living thing. Live your life, don’t earn points for after death.

  • Yeti

    “The above article is a classic example of how the scientific dictatorship
    is manipulating the conversation by portraying Christians as irrational
    and uneducated zealots. Yes I purposefully use the word “dictatorship”
    because that is the best definition for someone that deems to tell us
    how things are because they say so.”

    God, the world’s most lovable dictator!

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      The fact that they couldn’t see the irony in their description is what gets me with those people.

  • Rain Howard

    Gravity, he lost me at gravity.

  • My favorite is where he says the bible confirms the big bang, even though he’s a young earth creationist. Mind boggling.

  • matted 44

    If you believe in the Bible, you’re willfully ignorant.

    • MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma

      Some of it is wishful thinking. We’d all like to live forever, and believe that we will be reunited with those we’ve lost. And angels float around with harps and everyone is magically nice to each other. COME ON. NO one is good enough to live in THAT world. And a deity who sends you permanently to a place where demons live and you burn eternally because you slipped and said his name in vain does not sound like a nice guy. Ancient Aliens makes much more sense, frankly.

  • Stay true to yourself and God and the science will all work out.

  • Robert

    Please, please, post more. They are frigg’n HILLARIOUS. Why are these people not committed. This person is clinically insane by any definition.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      Now you can see how I’ve felt since I was a kid in the 60’s, surrounded by the insane. A society where the crazy talker is the one seen as honorable. I was most concerned when Reagan stole his first pres election. His agency that worked with those students did a pretty good con job on the American public. 444 days it was.

  • CON_servatives

    Dead Sea scrolls contains the book of Enoch. Please point me to the book of Enoch in the Bible.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      Their answer is a case of their repeating without actually knowing the content of their message. They heard someone speak it with authority, and take it as their weak excuse for a fact.

      • CON_servatives

        Blind faith. They don’t need it to be true, just to believe it is true

    • Matthew Reece

      The Book of Enoch is only considered canonical by the Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia and Eritrea.

      • CON_servatives

        Exactly

    • Cathryn Sykes

      They also contain information that strongly suggests that Mary Magdalene wrote a Gospel….that never made it into the New Testament probably because the early church fathers rejected it. There is also evidence of another story of an early Christian woman who was a preacher and worker of miracles.

      • My belief is in Christ not in denominational religion. I am firm in my belief. There are many books including the ones you mentioned Cathryn, and I read and study them all, you recognize by their fruit whether or not they are real and spiritual. The cannon was created by organized religion and I don’t buy that. The Church is the body of Christ and denominational religion is a division of that body, and I believe it to be a tool of the evil one. Grace and Blessings to us all.

  • SCOTT

    SO MANY christian WACKOS! GOD IS GOOD… Why are christians SO EVIL?

  • Can’tStandTheIdocyAnymore

    “Yes I purposefully use the word “dictatorship” because that
    is the best definition for someone that deems to tell us how things are because
    they say so. ”

    Then he proceeds to tell us how things are because he says so. Isn’t that exactly what Creationist are doing?

  • Christine

    If only the zealots would simply respect our “free will” and shut up!

  • Phil Keast

    Here we go for the bonus points (what am I getting myself into?) (Original writer’s text in italics. Also, since I know and respect my Christian friends (personally I practice a form of Zen, but am not a Buddhist since I reject formal religion (or any belief system, including science) dictating how I interpret the fundamentals of my beliefs), I shall refer to the author and other creation-scientists (gag, choke, splutter) as IFC (Irrational Fundamentalist Christians)
    Note: Some text removed just to keep this to something that is merely horrendously long as opposed to truly ridiculous. Also, some of the science presented here is massively simplified, don’t want to burn out too many IFC brain cells.

    The above article is a classic example of how the scientific dictatorship is manipulating the conversation by portraying Christians as irrational and uneducated zealots. Yes I purposefully use the word “dictatorship” because that is the best definition for someone that deems to tell us how things are because they say so. Science always claims to have the facts on their side while Christians are portrayed as delusional simpletons who are still bumbling around with a Dark Ages mentality.
    Science provides evidence, gained through a number of sources, describes those sources, and allows you to decide for yourself as to the accuracy of its conclusions. Doesn’t sound like a dictatorship to me.

    IFC tell me what to believe, and when asked for a reason to do so fall back on the principle that if you have faith you don’t need evidence. Just have faith and believe everything I say. That sounds more like a dictatorship to me.

    1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?
    Faith is a strongly held belief that does not require absolute evidence in order to be considered true.
    Correct, it requires no evidence, and this very lack of evidence is what differentiates it from science.

    Science is a general term used to describe mankind’s efforts to explain the nature of reality across many different fields and disciplines. By using the Scientific Method to legitimize the findings, scientists demonstrate that their experiments can be replicated independently by anyone and the results will be the same.
    Largely correct, since replication of results is required to verify that what is observed can and will be observed in the same way by people other than those proposing their thesis. But science is much more than this. It is an entire attitude to the world, the acceptance that the best we will ever be able to achieve when it comes to understanding the universe is an approximation. All science is based on improving the models that approximate our understanding of the universe. They are fallible, and a constant work in progress, but the methodology is designed (science is NOT some single individual’s way of doing things imposed on the world), and is the result of discussions by some of the greatest philosophers and thinkers of their time. Another aspect of science is that almost every scientific advance is the result of the interaction of a number of different fields of science, NOT a single source.

    2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?
    I do however believe that it is entirely possible that the Universe as we know it could very well be extraordinarily young. Modern science is unable to adequately counter a young Earth position. Old Earth theories require just as much faith as young ones do.
    The age of the Universe is based on the spectrum-shift of the observable stars, which gives us a way to estimate their age. The science behind the spectrum shift is based on our understanding of the speed of light and the effects of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The speed of light is based on careful measurements of observation data. And so on. No single scientific fact stands on its own. Which seems more likely, that the interlinking of a number of different (and in any cases apparently unrelated) scientific theories provides for the universe being very old. Or that an IFC could say, without evidence, that the universe “could very well be extraordinarily young”

    3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?
    Christians know that God doesn’t work this way. God created mankind in his image and gave them free will to choose to worship him. To simply give Noah a ready-made Ark defeats his desire to have a relationship with us. God wants us to experience this world through him so he can experience it through us.
    As far as it goes, I’ll pay this one, since it is a matter of faith, and as such not relevant to the comparison of science and creationism.

    4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?
    There are many examples of human remains and relics being found buried as deeply or deeper than dinosaur bones. This fact is widely ignored and goes unreported by the scientific community because it contradicts their official narrative of evolution.
    Actually, there has indeed been evidence of bones from many different eras being found buried in the same geological strata, but not in the same strata in the same place. Just because two different places have the same minerals and geological strata doesn’t mean they are the same age. The soils and rocks in Pompeii are virtually identical in composition as the soil and rocks in Hawaiian volcanoes that are the same as those in geological formations such as the mesas that are all that remains of volcanoes that are hundreds of thousands of years old. Dating of fossil evidence is far more complicated than the author believes, and, again, involves the inter-relationship of a number of different scientific fields.

    It is also proof of the Great Flood.”
    There is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood that destroyed all life except that on the Ark. It has been suggested that perhaps the flood may refer to any number of serious meteorological events in and around the Mediterranean basin, but these are very speculative and even if true would not require Noah to build an Ark large enough to preserve the existence of humanity and animals (the storms/floods/earthquakes/etc.) just weren’t that big).

    5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books. Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible. If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?
    Unfortunately this statement is not true. Science has been co-opted by the world economic and political power system. Scientists rely on funding. Power agendas rely on facts to support them. Scientists who provide “evidence” to advance an agenda get the money and the awards. Those who dedicate themselves to pure scientific truth, regardless of the consequences, are often isolated on the fringes. Rule #1 is: You get the science you pay for.
    Any scientist who manipulates their data to cater for their paymaster is quickly discredited and their work deemed unscientific and essentially of no value. Most scientists will go to extreme lengths to avoid even the perception that their work is influenced by anything other than the basic principles of science.

    Our greatest scientists were mavericks who threw the rule book out the window and went their own direction.
    Which just goes to show that the truly great scientists are NOT part of some corporate or political agenda?

    Only one man was able to obey all of God’s laws and that was his Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom we worship.
    Pity so few IFC forget that bit of doctrine, yet still call themselves Christians. Scientists, on the other hand, either follow the principles of Scientific Method, or they are not scientists.

    6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
    It is incorrect to make the statement that these things are all connected and share the same level of acceptance as established fact in science. That is simply not true.
    Actually, it is true, since they are all based on the same methodology to describe those phenomena.

    The methods used by science to determine both the age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution are questionable. One is used to support the other and vice versa.
    This is the strength of science, it doesn’t rely on a single source, but is verified by a number of apparently unrelated sources.
    The age of the fossil is determined by the layer of rock it is found in. The age of the layer of rock is determined by the fossils that it contains.
    Wrong, dating of fossils is far more complicated than saying “This is basalt therefore it is this many years old.”

    Other methods such as radio carbon dating have proven unreliable by giving false dating information on known objects.
    Firstly, science evolves, as techniques improve accuracy improves, and precision results in revision of the original dating.
    Secondly, and more to the point, carbon dating fails when applied to objects which someone expected and required a particular result and didn’t get it (Shroud of Turin anybody?)

    Science has never been able to demonstrate evolution by showing evidence of transitional forms. Despite changes, birds remain birds, plants remain plants etc.
    We see evolution in action all around us. Once there were dogs. Now there are poodles, greyhounds, wolfhounds, etc. All the result of the original animal changing in response to external environmental factors that increase their reproductive success. (BTW, Evolution is just that, creatures changing from one species to another in order to improve the chances of their offspring being able to out-breed it competitors for the same resource.) Cows become dairy cows, or longhorns, roses now come in a huge variety of colour. Domestic cats, wool bearing sheep versus meat-bred sheep, wheat, corn, maize, the list goes on and on. In these cases it was human factors that placed pressure on the original species to cause it to evolve, but it is evolution in action.
    In the lab it is possible to take a species of fruit fly with a particular feature (long wings) and coat it with a pheromone that makes it more sexually attractive to other fruit flies while leaving others (without long wings) untreated. Over a number of generations the treated fruit flies will out breed the untreated fruit flies, becoming a new species that has both long wings and naturally produces the pheromone. This is called evolution, and because the fruit fly has such a short lifespan, it is possible to observe all the transitional stages.
    Similarly, the fossil that IFC are so fond of trying to discredit show evidence of many transitional stages (did you know that there is a clear sequence of fossils that shows the shift from a small reptile (dinosaur) with enlarged forelimbs to keep its balance when running into what we would describe as a bird, with fossil evidence of all the transitional stages?).

    “Gravity is a mysterious force that is not fully understood by any scientific body despite its obvious and demonstrable existence. The main problem with it is that it is such a weak force, it should not be able to affect matter as much as it appears to.
    Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Scientists (well, physicists working in the fields of field theory and cosmology among other disciplines) do understand gravity and why it exerts such a significant force, but unless you are willing to spend the next ten years studying physics and getting a Doctorate on the study of gravity the explanation will be beyond your level of comprehension. Sorry.

    Photosynthesis is a true example of applying the Scientific Method to something to understand how it works. It is a great example of observational science applied to our natural world.
    Photosynthesis as an example of something we understand? Well, see if you can follow this – the process of photosynthesis involves the stimulation of specific photoreceptors (which happen to be green) [physics explains how they do this], how the cells converts the energy from the photoreceptors into proteins that can transport that energy across cell borders [this is bio-chemistry at work], the transportation of those enzymes to other cells in the plant [through capillary action], the transfer of that energy from the carrier proteins to other proteins to cause growth, flowering, and all the other biochemical and botanical processes involved in plants [which is what botony is about]. See, science is NOT simply “plants is green and get their energy from the sun and grow and produce flowers”. Science is complicated, it is not an easy answer, and it relies on the inter-weaving of different scientific fields to explain even the simple things. Yet you admit that it does sometimes explain things. This supports the IFC agenda of denying the validity of science how? Cos you can’t have it both ways, accepting the science that supports your prejudices while rejecting that which challenges your faith. Many scientists can and do resolve the issue of faith and science, embracing both fully. But none of them believe in Creationism and all of them would be appalled by it being considered a science.

    7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible? Then how do you know what it really said?
    One of the most important discoveries of the 20th Century was the Dead Sea Scrolls. By comparing them to modern Bibles we were able to see how faithfully scholars have been translating the word of God for more than 2000 years. Modern archaeology also continues to confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible.
    The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrated that there are numerous mistranslations between what is written in those scrolls and what is written in the modern Bible (choose your flavour, I prefer the King James, but there are so many “modern” bibles that they don’t even agree with each other, let alone the Dead Sea Scrolls). Also, some books of the Bible are not in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And there is material in the Dead Sea Scrolls that doesn’t appear in the modern Bible. So, as a primary source, the Dead Sea Scrolls aren’t very good. (A primary source is something like, for example, Roosevelt’s personal diary. As opposed to say, repeating what someone else said they heard from someone who told them that Roosevelt once said something that can’t be confirmed. As I say, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not a terribly reliable primary source.)

    8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
    We will all die someday. The important thing for Christians is how we live and glorify God and build a personal relationship with Jesus and each other. God has set a limit on our life span of 120 years. Those who seek to live beyond this limit through the use of science will have to break their covenant with God. They will corrupt their humanity and be rejected by God.
    OK, try this one for a minute: God gave man senses with which to observe his creation, a body to experience his creation, and a mind to endeavour to understand it. Doesn’t this suggest that having granted these gifts, God would approve of us using them to extend our lives to better experience his creation? Oh, wait, it’s presumptuous to suggest that you know God’s will better than any other man (particularly a scientist). But isn’t that what IFC do?

    9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong. Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
    It is very likely that many of the people who promoted the idea that the Earth was the centre of the Universe were the “scientists” of the day.
    Actually it was the Christian Church at that time that refused to accept any suggestion that the earth was not flat nor at the centre of the universe, since to believe otherwise would mean believing that humanity (and the earth) isn’t God’s only, and most important, creation. Scientists that disputed these self-evident truths suffered from persecution, incarceration, or execution.

    Science continually proves itself to be in error through the process of discovery and innovation.
    Science acknowledges we must always challenge our assumptions, and be willing to abandon our preconceptions in the interests of improving our understanding of the universe.

    Amazingly though, as science advances it continually confirms the truth of the Bible.
    Actually, NO. Show me the evidence, ‘cos I’ve never seen any, and I HAVE looked (I was raised a Christian and have studied the bible extensively, my current faith has nothing to do with rejecting God, but more to do with exploring the glories of his creation).

    Evolution fails the scientific test of being observable
    Whoever told you that all science is based on observation didn’t know what they were talking about. Although to be fair, most people without a Graduate Degree in Science don’t get what science is either, so they make simple mistakes like that.

    proponents of this theory are unwilling to address the most glaring deficiency which is to explain how the enormous diversity of life as we know it originated from non-living matter.
    Sorry, science now has a number of detailed descriptions of how it could have occurred, and there is experimental evidence supporting many of them.

    To call something “science” does not automatically make it indisputably true and factual. Scientific truths are constantly disproved, God’s truth is eternal.
    Scientist have never claimed to be infallible, but they are constantly seeking a better understanding of the universe, and are willing to look beyond their current knowledge (and prejudices) to find it.
    As for God’s truth being eternal, man’s interpretation of that truth is flawed to the point of being irrational and dangerous. How many different Christian denominations are there? Almost more than can be counted. How many of them agree on fundamental issues of doctrine and Gods message? Virtually none.
    And as for quoting the Bible as the irrefutable, eternal word of God, what about the contradictions in the Bible? Can you honestly say that, having studied the Bible, you have never noticed God declaring something to be an unalterable truth (e.g. the Ten Commandments) while in another part of the bible commanding his worshipers to do the exact opposite? Science changes as knowledge increases. The Bible just keeps on piling up inconsistencies and contradictions.

    10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future?
    The Bible has been vindicated many times over by scientific discoveries that confirm what it has said all along. For example The Big Bang is a recently (less than 100 years) accepted theory that confirms the 1st words of the Bible which says that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”
    When the event being predicted is so ambiguously stated that it is possible to provide a multitude of events that it applies to (i.e. the universe has a beginning, well Duh), it’s not such a great prediction. How many times have IFC predicted the world would end on a particular date? All have been wrong so far.

    Many more examples can be found which confirm scientific discoveries in agriculture, ecology, chemistry, physics, biology, genetics; every branch of science is represented if you are inclined to look.
    Name one. Honestly, just one, and not something that is open to interpretation, but a clear, unambiguous, definable example.

    The Bible is a timeless book that will always be relevant to human beings, no matter what time period they exist in. No other book has stood the test of time to remain relevant like the Word of God.
    This is a matter of faith, and it’s relevance to how Christians (and Evangelical Christians, and Protestants, and Greek Orthedox, and Russion Orthodox and Jews and Muslims, and all the other faithful “of the book”), but it says nothing of substance on the validity or value of science.

    Here is a specific prediction based on Biblical prophecy. Rev:13/16-18, the mark of the beast.
    [Insane Conspiracy Theory deleted in the interests of space and sanity]
    Alternatively, instead of scientists implanting mind control chips perhaps scientifically ignorant duck hunters tattooing the numbers 666 on their arses will bring about the end of the universe.

    Of all the Biblical sources of prophecy that could have been chosen, it had to be the Book of Revelations. Even biblical scholars (as in true believers in God and the sacrifice of his Son on the cross and subsequent resurrection in order to forgive us our sins) and who have spent decades studying the bible agree that the Book of Revelations is so loaded with allegorical language and disguised anti-roman rhetoric as to be meaningless as a source of prophecy.

    • Guest

      Apologies for the numerous spelling and grammar errors, they tend to creep into an article of that length, and there are only so many times even I’m willing to proof-read and expose myself to the IFC creationist nonsense, even when refuting it.

  • InRecovery

    “They will promote cures for disease” – Am I to assume my transplant scar is the mark of the beast, and therefore if I were a righteous person I’d have cheerfully died of renal failure rather than accept the transplant that my mother believed was a gift from god.

    “…designer babies and children’s protection issues, bio-enhancements that will make people “super-human” – Does the author think Gattica and Robocop were
    documentaries? I walk around on a prosthetic leg, but I still need a cane so I’m not super-anything.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      Yes they did take the 6 $million man as a documentary. They had no clue that the real human parts would have snapped off under those stresses the bionics impressed, if it were not an actor playing that part.

      Have you ever come across the ones that think when christ returns, he can grow into a ten foot tall man before your eyes? The all time transformer god / child. They still have a problem with understanding WHY we would use two of the simplest words in English, Father and Son. They do depict two different beings, yet they think they are the same in their special case.

  • meatwad_SSuppet

    Their answers with “god just wants to have a relationship with us” is a sure sign of a deeply programmed robotic training speaking through a mental case. In the 1970’s when we would hear of “deprogrammers” that bring people out of the newer cults like the Krishnas (which have been around a lot longer than the other newer Death Cult of Christ ) and ‘back to christ’ was not a good indication of a future happiness for all. It is a little bit like that old Star Trek episode where they land on a planet taken over by a computer pretending to be an all powerful lord and leader Landru. When the culture itself has honored the ramblings of those that ‘hear voices’, the sane look crazy and are shunned.

  • Kevin Nivek Murphy

    It’s frightening the stupid have gotten this cocky, and it’s everyones fault for silently tolerating this being shoehorned in the last 20 years to our national conversation. It irritates the hell out of me, because we are in 2014 talking about WHAT IS REAL SCIENCE. The Bible is a religious book of mythology, not a damn science textbook. Publix, taxpayer schools don’t indoctrinate children into religion, and that is solely what creationism does. You need faith in said religion to dump all biological, geological, and philosophical concepts to believe this story. And without any real evidence of very specific history that (given said religious belief) should be easy to find (“Great Flood”?). Science has answers, Volumes amd Libraries of answers and the best guesses the greatest human minds can offer, just not easy one word answers. Creationism offers uninformed one word answers, and that is inexcusable and is borderline child abuse to teach children that as Science fact. And it is time we all stopped being polite about this, and protect our countries future from the Idiacracy Now! crowd.

  • VegasJamie

    A few months ago you posted something saying you were Christian and republicans do not represent true Christianity…
    I see you turning into an atheist before my eyes. And I couldn’t be more proud. :’)

  • Cathryn Sykes

    I think that the Bible, like most religions, current and ancient, started as a more elaborate form of what I can “magic”….the idea that you can control what happens to you via certain activities….prayer, sacrifice, rituals. Early human beings had very little control over the natural world. Death by famine, storm, floods, drought, conflict with other humans were commonplace. So humanity devised the comforting idea that they could avoid such things by every kind of “magic”…from asking for help from unseen spirits, to building huge temples to eternal gods. Sacrifice a portion of your crops….or your first born son….to the gods and the rains would come, the floods would end, the sun would shine. Support the priests and they would hold rituals that would “please” the gods….and the corn would grow, the Nile would flood, your enemies would be defeated. Soon, religion as a prop for secular power became the norm. The priests would declare the king sacred, beloved of the gods, to be obeyed or the gods would be angry…the king would “establish” an official state religion, with the right for the priests to compel “offerings” and punish, with the king’s backing, any disbelievers. Throughout most of human history, there has been little or no separation of church. To be a heretic was as much a crime as to be a denouncer of the king. In this country, in the age of Rationalism, the Founding Fathers decided that true faith cannot and shouldnot be forced….and that therefore, the government was NEVER to favor one faith over the other.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Dictatorship? Science does not threaten to kill people for not believing in it.

  • Rusti`

    Deuteronomy: “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets; Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” This is only one of the ridiculous “thou shalt or nots” in the Bible. Does this sound like wisdom meant to be an eternal guideline for the human race? It’s a statement of about 2,500 years ago meant to keep the tribe growing and in line. I can’t believe that people are so ignorant they don’t look at that and then turn around and try to sound like a messenger of God! Sheesh!

  • Guest

    My favorite line: “It is very likely that many of the people who promoted the idea that the earth is the center of the universe were the ‘scientists’ of the day.” Yep, the Church had nothing to do with it. Is there a term for this kind of blatant revision of history?

  • Matthew Reece

    #8: Then how does he explain Jeanne Calment, who was well-documented as living more than two years past the 120-year “limit”?

  • Treepete

    I enjoyed when he said that science would be the rapacious creditor prior to the “beasts” arrival. It certainly sounds more like Walmart to me!

  • Toby

    When asked why couldn’t God instantaneously create an ark for Noah, he responded, “Christians know that God doesn’t work this way.” But isn’t that exactly how they claim he made the universe? WTF?

    • The whole Ark thing was a test of Noah’s faith and dedication. He passed.

  • whofreak

    “Evolution fails the scietific test because it is not observable”.
    I submit Creationism suffers the same.
    Has any of YOU ever witnessed something being created by the hand of God?
    I’ve never seen a woman pop out of some dudes ribcage either.

    • Jim McDade

      Evolution is, indeed, observable. I refer anyone who’s interested to Neil Shubin’s excellent book “Your Inner Fish” (A journey into the 3.5 billion tear history of the human body.)

  • Dylan Kynaston

    #6 and #7 contradict each other – carbon dating, dismissed as “unreliable” by this creationist, was used to date the Dead Sea Scrolls.

  • Guesttimate

    It actually hurt to read his answers. The stupid was strong with that one.. There are pages and pages of info that the Vatican and other Christians

    refuse to believe is true because as put in the guys words, it goes against what Christians believe. I actually felt bad for this guy and how delusional he was.

  • Rhonda Oliver

    Oh, my dear Lord! I wish you wouldn’t just lump all Christians together. There are fundamentalists, like the above one, and then there are Christians who very much believe in science. In Catholic school we were taught that the Bible is not to be taken literally and that scientific fact is truth. I have never had any problem with reconciling the two, as I have never seen any reason to have to do so. Of course,any “Christians” seem to think Catholics may not be Christians, even though we were the first ones. So don’t ask your 10 questions of Christians in general, but of fundamentalists in partcular. The rest of us are not blind to reality.

    • Perhaps it wasnt as clear in this article, but in the original article where these questions first came from, it was stated outright that it was directed towards very fundamental creationists, and not all Christians.
      I’m not religious, but find Christians of all denominations that follow the ‘true’ teachings of Christ to be wonderful and amazing people. I’m sure the intent of the article never meant to offend those people, or lump them in with the fringe lunatics.
      I put quotes around ‘true’ teachings of Christ out of respect, since I am outside the religion and might not hold the exact same views on what his teachings mean. For clarify though, to me Jesus was about showing love and compassion to all people equally. I know it’s much more complex than that, but I have some knowledge of the Bible and it’s accounts, and love is what a lot of Jesus’ message boils down to on a simple level.
      So, I hope you’re no longer offended and know that many of us out there know that these people who scream the loudest that they represent Christ are deluded.

  • Sensible

    I couldn’t go past # 3 without shaking my head. Pathetic how little people actually know about science.

  • Donna

    The main problem with gravity is that it is such a weak force, it should not be able to affect matter as much as it appears to. Did he really write that?

  • Moe Faster

    ‘scuse, evolution is NOT a theory because it IS observable. In Lake
    Tanzanique in Africa, there is a small fish called a Cichlid, that
    evolved into some 300 subspecies to take advantage of limited food
    sources. Hell, the Ford Mustang evolved right in before our eyes, now
    didn’t it ?? 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not badmouth the Mustang!”

  • Alan F

    You cannot have a discussion with someone who lives outside reality. There is nothing to talk about.

    Not even a trace of common ground (sense).

    As for Noah’s age.. Calculate it moons. (Lunar Months) 900/13= 70. A ripe and venerable old age back then.

  • David Redding

    The most precious gift we humans possess is an enquiring mind that has led us from the the cave to the cosmos. Let it always be so and that we readily pursue the truth for the benefit of mankind.
    The sad fact is that Creationists and particularly YEC’s possess a closed mind that is unresponsive to to all that science has offered the human race in explanation of our world and existence.
    Creationists are like the small child sat in the corner with its eyes closed and fingers in its ears mumbling away so that they are not forced to confront any inconvenient truth.
    So why bother with them at all. If they wish to delude themselves then let them as to engage with them only lends them some false legitimacy.
    Provided they can never influence governments or institutions let them live out their fantasies in peace.
    They may have the last laugh whenever we find who or what was responsible for the Big Bang – Hmmm.

  • Kallin Leenhouts

    How come all Christians today don’t live to be 120 if that’s the cap on our lifespan?

  • Kallin Leenhouts

    Also, whoever this Christian is, he obviously never bothered to find out how gravity works or he would know that the force gravity exerts on you is proportionate to your mass. So the bigger the mass, the more force is exerted.

  • Is the ultimate objective of science to unmask the fictitious myths behind all religions freeing mankind to pursue a rational utopia as espoused by Daniel Dennett and other atheist academics? Or should we subscribe to the prevailing Western view of a clear secular vs. sacred split, segregating out thoughts so that science and theology are not allowed to deal with any topics which intersect? Or will unbiased scientific inquiry lead us to a deeper appreciation and understanding of our Creator as espoused by early formulators of the modern scientific method, such as Isaac Newton, as well as many respected researchers, such as leading nanotechnologist, Dr. James Tour, who stated, “I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”