Geraldo’s Condescension about Ben Carson’s Faith

by / on October 12, 2015 at 6:07 am /
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrDigg ThisDigg ThisShare via emailShare via email Share

GeraldoThe insults are flowing like a river this week. First GQ mag, a liberal rag, with all the class of a plane crash has taken to insulting Ben Carson for saying that people should defend themselves from mass murderers. There is little to say about a magazine that seems to be headquartered in a foreign land – world?

Then along comes Geraldo on the Factor Friday October 9, 2015 belittling Carson’s belief in creationism.

Since the candidate I support is the one Rush recently declared as the “most principled,” Ted Cruz, no one can say I am speaking from bias. I am speaking from disgust at the pompous, self-assured Rivera who had to include millions of Americans in his insult.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

Not everyone in America has swallowed the Darwinian Kool-Aid – some of us have chosen to think it out for ourselves. We have not all taken the word of some college professor who would flunk us if we don’t giggle along with him about the comical contentious remarks made about the creation story at the Scopes monkey trial of 1925.

It is reported that the court broke into laughter when Darrow asked the famous question about the serpent being cursed to crawl on its belly. When Bryan, who was called to the stand, replied with a simple –yes, he did believe that was what happened? Darrow said “Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?”

We can only wonder what laughter there would be if the question, answered by nature, not the scripture, was asked about the ordinary butterfly. Is the winged insect cursed because at one point in its life it had to crawl around on a hundred legs? If nature can make such a transformation, how easy would it be for nature’s God to transform any creature he has made?

The logic engaged in 1925 was no logic at all, it was pure mockery. The very proof that scientist stand on to build the theory of evolution is what creationists are using today to de-bunk the Darwinian pipedream.

The twentieth and twenty first century sacred cow is without doubt this thing we call empiricism, or the scientific method. Scientists scrutinizing and engaging the evolutionary model now for the past 100 years are not all atheists or Darwinists. The science has come into serious disrepute and if nothing else it is still missing, the missing links.

The transitionary stages in the development of man should be everywhere. The generations said to have taken place for billions of years would produce evidentiary specimens in the millions. They do not exist.

The other non-existent aspect of modern science is the ability to accept a conclusion that the evidence does not support. The evolutionary model has momentum, not credibility.

Thousands of scientists, researchers and organizations have been scrutinizing Darwin’s doting and have come to other conclusions – all quite without referring to the Bible. Two of my online favorites are Creation.com and The Institute for Creation Research.

Insisting on no other explanation, but evolution is perfectly OK if the facts and the science were all summarily supportive, but they are not. This author was amazed to see more blog replies to my article entitled “Darwinism’s Props and Propaganda Approaching the Pathetic” published in 2013.

I read the standard arguments and found myself mostly amazed by the lack of imagination among those that replied. I was sure then, as I am today, that it is a profound PC push of our day, planted in our generation by our arch enemy whose most important work is to remove accountability to God. I have written many more articles on the subject and I find myself in good company when I think of my shared view with Ben Carson.

In the meantime, I would wait until the editors of GQ and the pompous Geraldo to learn how to separate conjoined twins before I gave much credence to their opinions of Dr. Ben Carson.

While Geraldo offered patronizing statements about Carson saying, “I really like the man” the damage was already done.

Maybe it’s time for Geraldo to evolve and consider this before he mocks a man’s faith as a fairy tale on national television. To wit:

“He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit. Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.” (Prov 17: 27-28)

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Michael Bresciani is the publisher of American Prophet.org since 2005. The website features the articles and reports of Rev Bresciani along with some of America’s best writers and journalists, news and reviews that have earned the site the title of – The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timelyreports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Michael Bresciani
View all articles by Michael Bresciani
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • DCM7

    One big reason that creationism (or creation science, as it is more correctly called) gets so much mockery is simple: those who oppose it can’t counter it with actual science — only with mockery, misrepresentation, fallacies (especially the “appeal to authority” one), etc.

    • Jimpithecus

      Okay, before you dismiss the “appear to authority” argument, think about this: Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon. Consequently, unless his educational track has deviated vastly from other doctors, he has had no exposure to palaeontology, evolutionary theory, palaeogeology, palaeogenetics, genetics, molecular biology and biogeography, and yet he is quite content to dismiss their findings out of hand. And yes, there is considerable science behind all of those areas of study. What are these misrepresentations and fallacies of which you write?

      • DCM7

        What does it matter what Ben Carson does for a living? The fatal problems with the evolutionary hypothesis are recognizable to any honestly inquiring person, whether they be a professional scientist or a middle school student. There is no special knowledge or understanding, available only to scientists, by which “molecules to man” evolution could be seen to be true. In fact, any reasonable understanding of life and how it works gives powerful evidence *against* the idea of its somehow having been created without a Creator.

        When I speak of the “appeal to authority” fallacy, I’m talking about the habit of evolution-accepters to say things like “evolution must be true because all real scientists say it is,” while consistently being unable to present anything that shows the foundational, fatal problems with evolutionism to somehow not be real.

        There are reasons evolutionism is so popular in the scientific community and among the general public. The catch is, none of those reasons has anything to do with whether it’s true. A popular belief does not equal a true one, especially in this day and age — even among professionals.

        • Jimpithecus

          You write: ” The fatal problems with the evolutionary hypothesis are recognizable to
          any honestly inquiring person, whether they be a professional scientist
          or a middle school student.”

          What is your evidence for this?

          • DCM7

            Years of learning about evolutionism vs. creation science, hearing what both sides have to say and discovering where the preponderance of the evidence points.

            • allinx

              Creation Science is an oxymoron.

              Linwood

              • DCM7

                You can do all the name-calling you want. We’ve heard it all before. Some of have made the effort to honestly learn, instead of just accepting what we’d *like* to be true or what’s popular to *think* is true. You can’t erase what we know.

              • allinx

                You wrote: “Some of us have made the effort to honestly learn”
                - - - -
                Learn? No, repeat. Your beliefs are basically the same as the ancients. And that is the gist of the Scientific Method, to seek, to learn and be able to change.

                You wrote: “You can try to distract from what we know, or try to cast little shadows of doubt on it, but you can’t remove it.”
                - - - -
                You wrote: 1) “distract from what we know” and 2) “but you can’t remove it”.
                That is it in a nutshell.
                Thanks,

                Linwood

              • DCM7

                “Your beliefs are basically the same as the ancients.”
                Except that the “ancients” in question (I.e., the Judeo-Christians) didn’t know how much science in the future would validate what they knew by faith.

                “And that is the gist of the Scientific Method, to seek, to learn and be able to change.”
                Which has everything to do with investigating what the Creator has created, and nothing to do with the myth of Creator-less creation (aka evolutionism).

                You’re just calling things what they aren’t, as if you can prove something that way… and offering no real proof or evidence of anything.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        Are you a paleontologist, a geneticist, a molecular biologist, AND a biogeographer? If you aren’t all of these things, then you are at least as unqualified to place your faith in what some people claim about these subjects as Dr. Ben Carson is to dismiss the illogical beliefs of people whose claims are contradicted by real science.

  • allinx

    “Not everyone in America has swallowed the Darwinian Kool-Aid – some of us have chosen to think it out for ourselves”
    ——
    Better check your own Kool-Aid. And replace your “think” with another word. Science searches for “truth”, and can change with new information. Religious indoctrinations supply their answers already made, with real curiosity excluded, and are written in stone.

    Linwood

    • DCM7

      Claims like you make have been made time and time again. And every single time, they’ve been fallacious.

      Real science does indeed involve the search for truth. But evolutionism isn’t real science, and it doesn’t involve the search for truth, so your statement doesn’t apply to it on any level.

      Statements like “science changes with new information,” in a discussion about evolutionism, are an absolute joke while evolutionary “science” persists even as the proof of its falsehood has long been there for all to see.

      “They argue that science is self-correcting, and this may be true in an ideal world where people aren’t motivated by bias and the multitude of ways one can be invested in a certain theory being true. But in a system where peer review is used to filter out dissenting voices and reinforce the status quo, it is hard to see how the self-correcting can occur.” — Lita Costner, creation.com

      And Christianity never excludes real curiosity; quite the opposite. It’s no coincidence that real science historically flourished under Christianity in a way it never flourished under any other system (a fact I bet you’ve never bothered finding out). Christians were driven, like no one else, to investigate creation and look into the mind of God.

      “the Christian God was rational, responsive, dependable and omnipotent and the universe was his personal creation in which his divine nature was put on display for man’s benefit and instruction… Christians believed that science could be done and should be done.” — Ronald Stark, historian

      • Jimpithecus

        “Statements like “science changes with new information,” in a discussion
        about evolutionism, are an absolute joke while evolutionary “science”
        persists even as the proof of its falsehood has long been there for all
        to see.”

        Again, what is your evidence for this?

        • DCM7

          Answered above.

          • Jimpithecus

            No, not answered. All you said was that you have spent years studying “evolutionism” vs. creation science. For one, if you had really studied evolution, you would know that no evolutionary biologist calls it that and it is pejorative, so don’t talk about name-calling. I have also studied evolution and creation science for years and can find no support for creation science.

            • DCM7

              “For one, if you had really studied evolution, you would know that no evolutionary biologist calls it that”
              Of course I know that no evolutionary biologist calls it that. My calling it “evolutionism” may be pejorative, but as I have found it to be a belief system rather than science, I consider the “ism” to be entirely appropriate.

              “I have also studied evolution and creation science for years and can find no support for creation science.”
              I seriously doubt you were looking for any then. And to paraphrase the old commercial, it’s easy not to find what you’re not looking for.

              Within the confines of a quick comment the best I can do is point you to http://www.creation.com as an initial resource. There’s a large variety of articles there so it may take a little digging to find the most relevant ones. But anyone who can read some of those and come away without serious doubts about evolutionism must *really* be committed to it in spite of evidence. (The writers at the site spend quite a bit time responding to such people, and routinely — yet graciously — trash their fallacies.)

      • allinx

        You wrote: “science is self-correcting, and this may be true in an ideal world where people aren’t motivated by bias and the multitude of ways one can be invested in a certain theory being true.”
        - - - - -
        You have made a correct observation, it’s just applied to the wrong subject.
        And it just so happens that your truth is the same as that which was based on writings, or scribblings, from superstitious peoples, thousands of years ago, in a book that has been edited and re-edited, and all through a Church that was often corrupt. Just like other religions, which have their own “science”. What a koinkadink!
        I cannot tell whether you are a hoodwinker or have been hoodwinked.

        Linwood

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          The Bible has been translated and re-translated over the 3,000+ years since the first book of it was written; it has not been “edited and re-edited.” Would you rather everyone have to learn ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic to read it? Would you also prefer everyone have to learn ancient Greek and Latin to understand works of the classics? Or are non-Biblical writings somehow entitled to a looser, more “generous” standard?

          You’ll get no argument here that there have been plenty of people over the past 2,000+ years who have called themselves “Christians” who have been corrupt…just as there have been plenty of people over just the past several decades (and beyond, of course) who have been corrupt. Or, again, is anyone who does not claim to be a Christian somehow entitled to a looser, lower, more “generous” standard of veracity in order to be considered credible? (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/do-scientists-fabricate-and-falsify-research/)

          Speaking of veracity, the 3,000+ year old Bible leaves even the latest science books in the dust as far as credibility goes. There has not been a single scientific or historical error proven in the Bible…yet modern scientific claims are continually being “edited and re-edited” to adjust for the fact that what we “knew” yesterday is suddenly different today. (Hint: the claims of empirical fact that are nothing more than wild flights of assumption get really, really old).

          I’m not aware of any religious texts other than the Bible that even come close to providing a coherent, logical framework for the origins of the universe, or even much significant in the way of scientific claims (unless you count evolutionist/materialist text, and while they’re definitely religious in nature and make scientific claims, they most assuredly do not provide a coherent, logical framework for the origin of the universe). Could you cite some of these “other religions which have their own ‘science'”?

          • franklinb23

            “Or, again, is anyone who does not claim to be a Christian somehow entitled to a looser, lower, more “generous” standard of veracity in order to be considered credible?”

            In general, I’m more likely to believe claims where the attitude of the one making the claim is “I wish this were not true, but it is” or even “I’m indifferent to whether this is true, but it is”.

            The problem is that most human beings are prone to elaborate or even lie when they want something to be true for some personal reason. This isn’t just in religion, of course. It happens in science as well.

            Unfortunately, it’s difficult for us to determine when this type of bias exists.

            Is the Christian message ultimately one most of humanity wants to be true? I don’t know. Yes and no. It offers a “get out of jail free” card to the worst of the worst. But it also requires us to reject the things we seem to want the most.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Very insightful and very true, especially your last paragraph.

          • allinx

            Translated and edited, copied and recopied. Like Constantine and the The Council of Nicea, where what was desired was included, and other writings excluded.
            You wrote: “There has not been a single scientific or historical error proven in the Bible… ”
            - - Wow! Do you mean like Church’s Earth-Centered Universe, for which Galileo was convicted of heresy for his Sun-Centered one. And other banned writings? And women, who did not fit into their rigid system, burned as witches?
            You wrote: “people over the past 2,000+ years who have called themselves “Christians” who have been corrupt…”
            - - Yes, and it was those people who were in power and who current believers trust that they passed it on intact.
            You wrote; “Could you cite some of these “other religions which have their own ‘science'”?
            - - The Science in Arabian lands were the most advanced until “believers” took over. That is why I put science in quotes, because their basic beliefs (the Bible, the Koran, and such) are just simple ancient religious explanations of how the universe works and are not scientific (do not follow the scientific method). The ancients had a good excuse for not knowing. You don’t. At least Muslims are not calling their beliefs Science. Yet.
            This is another version of the Ann Coulter technique. It’s usually, “What we do, just say they do”. Here it’s similar, “What they do, just say we do”. It’s about stealing credit. As simple as that!

            Linwood

            • DCM7

              “Do you mean like Church’s Earth-Centered Universe”
              Which was not based on the Bible, by the way. Nor was anything else you named.

              Overall, you’re trying to attack the Bible by pointing out the distinctly non-Biblical actions of specific “religious” people. That makes for a pretty interesting fallacy. But it doesn’t make for a remotely convincing argument.

              By the way, you’re not going to distract us from the fatal problems with evolutionism by making fallacious arguments that attempt (unsuccessfully) to cast shadows of doubt on the Bible. We’re way ahead of you here.

              • allinx

                The Church taught that the Universe was Earth-centered. The Catholic Church was the basis for Christianity.

                You’re trying to squeeze some water from a rock (igneous, not sedimentary).

                You wrote: “We’re way ahead of you here.”

                Only if you’re going the wrong way down a one-way road.

                I have no expectation of convincing rigid believers, just hopefully that someone not completely locked in an ancient bubble of belief might have some skepticism left.

                Linwood

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                Some in the church did indeed, without Scriptural authority, teach that the universe was Earth-centered…just as some today, without Scriptural authority, teach that evolution is true-even though the Bible flatly contradicts that assertion, along with science.

                Like you, I have no expectation of convincing a rigid believer in the religion of evolution. Evolution requires vastly more faith to believe in than does the Genesis account of creation. My only hope here is to provide information for the open mind that might read this page, and the hope that yours might someday become open to the truth as mine became some 15 years ago.

              • DCM7

                “I have no expectation of convincing rigid believers, just hopefully that someone not completely locked in an ancient bubble of belief might have some skepticism left.”

                As much as you’d like to imagine me, and others like me, to be willfully ignorant, closed-minded, etc., that label just ain’t going to stick. Personally, I am as rational, logical and skeptical as anyone you’d ever be likely to run into. That doesn’t mean rejecting the idea of God; it means recognizing that He is real, and man-made fantasies of mankind being its own creator are not.

                I notice that all you have to offer is essentially name-calling. If you want to talk about things that are supposedly real and proven, then feel free to offer some proof. So far, you appear to be empty-handed in that regard.

              • Jimpithecus

                Are you? You should probably read this, then: http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Seely-3-Geo_Meaning_Earth_Sea.pdf

                BTW, Seely is, as am I, a Christian. We simply see no support for a literal translation of the early chapters of Genesis. Neither did Augustine.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                Augustine wasn’t perfect (no human being is), but don’t impute things to him that he never said or meant. It is true that he vacillated on precisely how literally to take the Bible but he didn’t even come close to being an old-earth evolutionist. He believed that God created everything basically as he saw it in his time (and as we see it in ours), and that the genealogies of the Old Testament could be taken at face value (and these allow for no more than about 6000-10,000 years from the Creation Week). In fact, he even stated in “City of God” that, “We can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.” Augustine also believed what the Bible says about the global flood of Genesis-an event that no doubt profoundly altered the geology and climatology (and almost every other ‘ology on earth) to render the post-flood earth quite a different-looking and operating place than it was pre-flood-with many of the things that happened during that global flood easily accounting for so many of the geological features we now observe..

                The first step toward finding the truth is to stop reading what the ignorant, what the liars and the propaganda artists have said about facts and go directly to those facts themselves.

                The article you referenced attempts to impute the ignorance of various pagan cultures to God himself (God is the author of the Bible, and he certainly knows what he did, even within the context of the language of the writers he used to put it in writing here on earth). Even if the ancient Hebrews had shared in some or even all of the ignorance of the pagan cultures around them (and knowing their propensity for doing exactly that is well-documented in the Old Testament), God-the author of Genesis-was not subject to that same ignorance. He knew very well what he created and how he created it. The fact that it may have taken thousands of years for humanity to gain the knowledge and tools to verify what God said thousands of years earlier takes nothing away from the veracity of the original statement.

                The assumption here seems to be that the ancient Hebrews couldn’t
                possibly have had the inherent knowledge to exceed the understanding of
                the pagan cultures around them…when the clear claim of the
                Bible is not that it came from the mind of ancient Hebrews but from the
                mind of God himself.                 Either the Bible is authoritative, or it isn’t. There is no middle ground for the person who calls themselves a Christian; if certain claims in the Bible can’t be relied on as accurate, how can ANY claims in the Bible be relied on as accurate? And if none of the claims of the Bible can be relied on as accurate, on what basis is a so-called “Christian” supposed to form any allegiance whatsoever to a document that can’t be relied on?

                This is just another vain attempt to avoid the clear truth: there is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to take the Genesis account of creation at face value, in its plain context.

                Unlike the so-called scientific textbooks that were just printed last month, the Bible has never been found to contain a single scientific or historical error…unlike those aforementioned scientific textbooks which must be continually “revised” to throw out the false things we used to “know” to make room for the new things that we now “know” (until they, too, are thrown out because we substituted assumption for fact).

                There is no reason whatsoever to believe that God didn’t create the earth and everything on it in six 24-hour days. None. Contextually, the “days” of Genesis 1 can mean nothing but literal 24 hour periods. He even made it astonishingly clear, for the benefit of dullards and the rebellious:

                And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

                An intelligent being cannot possibly manufacture this to mean anything other than the usual 24-hour day…unless they are desperate to find a way to reconcile the illogical and scientifically-contradicted nonsense of ancient-earth evolutionism. And again, there is no reason whatsoever for someone who calls themselves a Christian to accept such fantasy.

                God could have done it in a nanosecond, so doing it in 144 hours was
                really taking his time. No 4.5 billion years was necessary.

                God also makes it clear that all plants and animals-including humans-were here (not evolved) by the end of that 144 hours. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary. None. Conjecture and assumption with a “This is science” label slapped on it doesn’t count as scientific proof. A being powerful enough and intelligent enough to create this vast universe would have no need to rely on a sloppy, haphazard process like evolution to develop the wide variety of life we see. God made it clear that every life form reproduces “after it’s own kind;” it does not give rise to other kinds. Science (real science, not assumption and conjecture) affirms this, in that we know empirically that two different types of organisms cannot interbreed, and no organism has ever been observed in the laboratory or in the field giving rise to a different kind of organism.

                The Bible also makes it unmistakably clear that death (and the entire current fallen state of creation) came about through the rebellion of one man (Adam), that it was NOT part of the natural and perpetual order, as evolutionism claims.

                The only reason to even attempt to reconcile the Bible to evolutionism and vice versa is if you are of the mistaken belief that there is incontrovertible proof of the claims of materialists/evolutionists. There is not.

                Let me say it again to be perfectly clear: there is no proof whatsoever to support evolutionism. The entire hypothesis is driven by anti-theism-driven bias and based completely on assumption, not empirical fact. We can assume what happened during a theoretical pre-historical period, but when there is no written record (except for the Bible, which evolutionists reject in their closed-mindedness) we cannot know. In the absence of knowledge, we can only guess and assume. And hopefully you know the axiom about what you get when you assume. Clinging to certain assumptions-especially when there are other possibilities at least as good if not better than the assumptions you’re clinging to-is a very good way to get started down a wrong road that gets less and less navigable the farther down it you go.

                The claims of the Bible and the claims of evolutionism are NOT reconcilable. Both could be false. One of them could be correct. But both CANNOT be correct. The person who calls themselves a Christian has a decision to make; once you understand what both say, there is no room to sit on the fence.

                Either the Bible is true about ALL of the claims it makes (including its divine origin), or it’s as worthless as any other man-made piece of literature out there. And if you call yourself a Christian, then it is inconsistent to believe that the Bible is NOT true, in part (because if you can’t believe one certain part, how can you know which parts you CAN believe?) or in whole.

                Sadly, you’re stuck where I was about 17 years ago as a theistic evolutionist. At least I had the intellectual honesty when I realized (a) the immense scientific problems with evolution and that it contradicts itself, and (b) that creation science theories fit the evidence much better than those of materialists and evolutionists, to follow the evidence where it leads, and admit that I had been wrong.

                I can hope that you are able to do that, but from the tone of your comments so far, you appear to be so dug in to this nonsense that it will be immensely difficult for you to admit the unviability and illogic of the materialist/naturalist position.

              • Jimpithecus

                I didn’t say he was an old-earth evolutionist. There was no such thing back then. Please don’t misread me. What he did not do was take the creation account as reflecting six literal, 24-hour days, but rather a means of compartmentalizing the creation, itself. He actually thought that creation was initiated all at once, as nearly as I can tell.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                That is clearly what you implied. What are the critical aspects of the early chapters of Genesis which evolutionists contest? The historical fact of Adam and Eve as actual people, the 144 hour creation week, and the completion of creation as we know it within that time frame.

                You cannot rationally say Augustine believed the Genesis account to claim anything significantly different than the 6-day creation week-certainly nothing like the 4.5 billion years alleged by materialists and evolutionists, and also the vast eons (which are pretty much the same thing as the 4.5 billion years claimed by materialists/evolutionists) glommed onto by day-agers and gappers (of which I used to be one, before I knew better).

                “We can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.”

                During Augustine’s time, according to Biblical chronology, approximately 4,400 years had passed since the creation of man, which is within the “not 6,000 years” time frame posited by Augustine.

                Even positing an instantaneous creation (which God certainly was capable of doing, though the Bible clearly states he did NOT do), Augustine is without a doubt NOT aligned with those who posit millions or billions of years since the first life appeared on earth. “Instantly” is much, much closer in time frame to 144 hours than 4.5 billion years is close to 144 hours.

                So Augustine was clearly what is considered a “young earth creationist.”

                And as Augustine began to realize later in life as he backed away from some of his earlier suppositions, there is really no reason whatsoever to assume anything other than that the Genesis account means what it says. Contextually, it clearly means what it plainly says. Theologically, if you are to believe the rest of the Bible, it MUST mean what it plainly says. And scientifically, there is nothing in empirical science which indicates it cannot or does not mean what it plainly says. And there is a lot of hard science which supports the conclusion that it means what it plainly says.

                Those who call themselves Christians and believe that the plain meaning of Genesis cannot be reconciled to “science” and must be distorted in order to conform to “science” are, as I used to be, misled into believing that the assumptions which evolutionists try to pass off as facts are real science. They are not. They are interpretation and assumption, nothing more. And the more you learn about the basis of these so-called “scientific” assumptions, the more you realize that these assumptions are not only scientifically unsupportable, but are actually contradicted at many important points by real, empirical science.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Wow! Do you mean the ancient Greek science that the church foolishly jumped on board with (like many currently do with the fantasy of evolutionism)? Uh huh.
              Actually, the canon was established long before Constantine. Fail.

              As for that “Science in Arabian lands,” why don’t you cite me some chapter and verse (or at least some Surah)? Fail.

              You continue to fail. Go ahead and reveal your ignorance some more.

              • allinx

                You misunderstood me, there is no science in these “holy books”. Just stories to indoctrinate the new generations.
                It’s about Control.
                Religion and Science do not mix, and also Religion and Freedom, for that matter.
                Lying is a sin, you know.
                Linwood

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                It was you who said:

                Just like other religions, which have their own “science”.

                I asked you to back up your claim…and as always happens with evolutionists, you fell flat and tried to dodge the argument.

                Yes, it IS about control. Evolutionists know deep down that their faith is illogical and contradicted by real science. That is why they ruthlessly try to control the debate and not allow competing ideas to even enter the arena. They know evolution is a paper tiger.

                Christianity and religion are harmonious. The God who created the universe created the science behind it. That’s why, unlike any textbook written by so-called scientists cannot match the record of veracity of the Bible. Many of today’s “scientists” are desperate to manufacture a man-centered religion around something they call science….while the book written by the Creator of the universe stands in harmony with the scientific evidence revealed in the universe.

                As for Christianity and freedom, you would do well to learn and note that it was the United States-the first nation to be founded by Christians on Christian principles-that became the most free and successful nation in all of history.

                Yes, lying is a sin. You would do well to note that and stop trying to deceive.

              • allinx

                Religion and Nationalism. Two of the major parts of Tribalism which has corrupted Man, and doomed him to everlasting war and hate.

                Lordy Mercy.

                Linwood

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                Whining about “religion and tribalism.” Two hallmarks of Marxist Leftist philosophy that is in complete contradiction to the fundamental principles of Americanism, and liberty in general.

                I see that your IP address places you in Louisiana. I suggest you relocate to Cuba, North Korea, or some other Marxist hellhole which is more in tune with your God-hating, anti-freedom leanings. Both you and America would be much happier parted.

              • allinx

                Is that the real you coming out? A Conservative Old Testament Christian? Just say you believe in a “Young Earth” and make it complete.

                By the way, I am pro-Freedom. I am not from Texas. I like America. And, I do not hate God. I do not hate Donald Duck, either, a.h.

                Linwood

              • DCM7

                Ultimately, just more name-calling and saying things in hopes they’ll appear to be true.

              • allinx

                Name-calling? You only see the name calling you want to see. Just like your “scientific” beliefs.

                Linwood

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                The real me has always been out: a conservative, Old and New Testament Christian who believes what both the Bible and science indicate: an earth only a few thousand years old. And proud of it. There is great assurance in adjusting one’s opinions to what both science and the Creator of the universe say.

                Actually, your IP indicates you’re in Louisiana. And your stated loathing for American patriotism make it clear that your philosophy is antithetical to freedom. Of course, you may very well be the typical Leftist who loves to reap the benefits that can only be found in a Judeo-Christian society…while simultaneously loathing the origin of those blessings.

          • DCM7

            The link should be http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/do-scientists-fabricate-and-falsify-research. As you have it, there is a parenthesis included that keeps the page from being found.

      • allinx

        Also,
        You wrote and quoted: “Ronald Stark, Historian.”
        —-
        Yeah, right. A real historian, and unbiased, too!
        https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewaddress/in-the-news/science-origins/biblical-origins-of-science

        Linwood

        • DCM7

          What is your point? That his bias is toward something you personally disagree with, and therefore his is automatically invalid?

          • allinx

            Not at all. His conclusions are from Religion, already predetermined and inviolate.

            Funny how the “scientists” from thousands of years ago, got all the science right.

            Linwood

            • DCM7

              Funny how the Creator already knew what people would discover for centuries and millennia later, and set things up long ago so that later people would recognize that.

              You’ve said precisely what you claimed not to be saying: That, because you personally disagree with a Christian bias, you think you have the right to pretend it’s automatically false.

              In the meantime, you defend (or pretend to be able to defend) a modern myth that’s been carefully protected from the growing evidence against it, because the only alternative is to face the fact that man isn’t his own maker. If you want to oppose what’s really “predetermined and inviolate,” you need to honestly examine your own beliefs… if you have the courage to do so.

              • allinx

                Psychics are very good with hindsight, too.

                Linwood

              • DCM7

                Who said anything about hindsight? Not me.

    • Thisoldspouse

      Ha. You don’t even know what science is, obviously. It’s purpose is not to “search for truth,” although it involves the truth. Science is only a tool, one that can be misused and mistaken.

      • DCM7

        It may be just a matter of definitions or semantics, but I would say that “science” that is misused and mistaken (so that it can be recognized as such, anyway) is not really science at all.

        • Thisoldspouse

          We cannot, however, deny that science has been, often is, and will be in the future mistaken about a great many things.

          How many times have dietary prescriptions been revise, even reversed? And the earlier science is still deemed science, even though it was wrong.

      • allinx

        I do. Do you?
        If knowledge is misused, that is on the misuser. If a conclusion is tested and is found to be mistaken, then there’s more work to be done.

        Contrary to belief here, Evolution is not faith. It can be revised.

        Creation Science was a hypothesis. Disproven. Now, it is based on faith. Revision to believers is not acceptable.

        Linwood

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Evolution has never been observed in the laboratory or the field. Ever. Not even once. There is also no proof that it has ever happened in the past.

          The definition of “faith” is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” That fits evolution to a T. Even more so since several critical assertions of materialists and evolutionists have been disproven by science. It takes a LOT of faith to believe something that has been proved doesn’t happen somehow happened.

          Creation science has not been disproved. It has merely been rejected by closed-minded individuals who have more faith in the scientifically impossible than in the clear evidence of an intelligent designer of the universe.

          • allinx

            Good luck.

            Linwood

        • DCM7

          “If a conclusion is tested and is found to be mistaken, then there’s more work to be done.”
          Of course… except where certain predetermined “conclusions,” such as evolutionism, are protected from ever being found to be mistaken.

          “Evolution… can be revised.”
          It gets revised all the time, so as to keep it from being taken away altogether by the contrary evidence that keeps mounting. In fact, it shows a conveniently acrobatic flexibility unequalled by any legitimate theory, to the point where it depends on all manner of contradictory explanations.

          “Creation Science was a hypothesis. Disproven.”
          You can say that all you want, but it won’t magically become true. The supposed “disproof” of creation hasn’t happened, or come anywhere close to happening. It’s telling that you think you even have a basis for claiming otherwise. On the other hand, evolutionists can’t even pretend to address the deep, fatal problems with their hypothesis without all manner of rationalization and speculation. This is all stuff you seem to have lived your life without even beginning to learn about.

          “Now, it is based on faith. Revision to believers is not acceptable.”
          Everyone has faith; there is no one who can live life without taking some pretty big things on faith. And it’s telling that anyone thinks they can pretend otherwise. But revision is no more unacceptable regarding creation science than it is for any other legitimate science. The basic knowledge doesn’t change because it doesn’t need to — we don’t have to “revise” the knowledge that there is gravity, for example — but there is always more to be learned and better understood.

          • allinx

            Again, most creationists are hoodwinked but some are hoodwinkers who manipulate them.
            It’s irresponsible but I guess the hoodwinked just can’t help themselves. The hoodwinkers can.

            Faith Meathead! Faith is what allows you to believe what you otherwise wouldn’t believe if you was in your right mind. Archie Bunker.

            Linwood

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              The truth is too simple (the evidence that affirms the claims in Genesis is too obvious, and the evidence of materialism/evolution’s illogical and unscientific claims is too obvious) to “hoodwink” creationists. Once you step five feet away from the braggadocious proclamations of evolutionism, it’s easy to see it for the empty suit that it is.

              You should give it a try sometime.

            • DCM7

              “most creationists are hoodwinked”
              Just more empty claims that you don’t (and, ultimately, can’t) give any basis for.

              I have a much better quote regarding faith:
              “Faith, at least in the Christian religion, is informed by reason. It may at times go beyond reason, but it does not run counter to
              it.” — William Muehlenberg, in an amateur review of “The God Delusion”

  • allinx

    Thanks to a couple of posters, below, for demonstrating the potential effect that too much Religious indoctrination can have on some minds. Not nearly all, but some. A fantasy world.
    Especially the one, below, who can equate Freedom with the Old Testament.
    Scary!

    Linwood

    • DCM7

      I’m sure your various witty remarks leave you feeling as if you’ve managed to make some sort of point. Ultimately, though, you’ve done little besides calling names, as I’ve pointed out previously.

      “demonstrating the potential effect that too much Religious indoctrination can have on some minds”
      Feel free to go off and invent whatever imaginary things about us you’d like. Just don’t expect us to take you seriously when you type them out.

      • allinx

        And you ignore what’s been claimed about me.
        However, our Constitution does allow us to peacefully disagree. Score one for America.

        Linwood

        • DCM7

          If you see me doing any name-calling, feel free to point it out. That’s not my style.

          • allinx

            Might have been the other guy. If so, please accept my apologies.

            Linwood

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Religious indoctrination in ideas that are contrary to science and logic, like the religion of evolution, definitely can have an adverse effect on the mind.

      Including the inability to recognize that the Mosaic Law was far ahead of other cultures, and laid the groundwork for what was further revealed in the New Testament and became the foundation for the greatest nation in history: the United States.

  • DCM7

    “[People] have come to believe this far-fetched story, possibly because they have heard it reinforced by so many authoritative sources, such as their school teachers, college/university professors and ‘experts’….

    “[It’s easy to] forget just how preposterous [evolutionism] is. When you are dealing daily with the details, such as the latest super-trivial claim that some fish adapting to slightly colder water ‘proves evolution’, you tend to lose sight of how fanciful the big claim is. I mean, how can nothing become everything (the Universe) with no cause whatsoever? This is the stuff of madness. The origin of life? Even the simplest microbe has stupendous integrated complexity far beyond human ability to invent. It just popped into existence by the blind forces of chemistry and physics? This is lunacy.

    “So why do intelligent people believe such impossible things?

    “Perhaps the continual focus on little bits of the story contributes to the wide acceptance of the grand evolutionary story; rarely does anyone step back and look at the BIG picture. Maybe some have never heard anything else. But more importantly,
    ‘everything made itself’ means that the Creator-God of the Bible can be pushed aside.”
    — Don Batten

  • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
  • retiredday

    Popular thought is non-thought. Perhaps other readers share my opinion that much of what is argued here against creationism is mainly the beating of a dead horse. That is because the very idea of creationism is a threat to the world view of scientific materialism. It is not (as they say) a matter of logic or factual data. There are plenty of sources (some cited here) that provide scientific evidence that pulls the rug from under Darwinianism.

    What drives the anti-creationists is not objectivity, but a circle-the-wagons mentality for the protection of their sacra-sanct world view. They will not accept the Creator as real. They will not accept the things of the Spirit. For them to do so, they would have to abandon a world view that deceives them into believing they are in control of their destiny. They would have to humble themselves to do that. That’s a big order.

    Geraldo Rivera makes a living making commentary that is more reflective of his own ego than of concepts such as principles and humility. There is no special place for Ben Carson in his limited world view.

    Pray for these people.

    • allinx

      You wrote: “What drives the anti-creationists is not objectivity, but a circle-the-wagons mentality for the protection of their sacra-sanct world view”

      Remove the anti-” and you’ve got it right.
      Unfortunately, the Ann Coulter technique (Whatever we do, just say they do) is popular with a lot of people.

      “Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion”. Joseph Campbell

      Linwood

      • retiredday

        Psychologists know that often the things we see in others that bother us the most are really reflections of our own faults. If the shoe fits, wear it.

      • DCM7

        More empty claims that you neither do nor can back up. You show no sign of actually knowing what either creationists nor evolutionists actually do or think. And the “whatever we do, just say they do,” whoever you may attribute it to, has long been the specialty of your side. Shoot, you’re doing it yourself.

        “Mythology” is what your side calls truth it disagrees with.

  • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

    That’s actually pretty mild compared to the filter through which dedicated evolutionists imagine the universe.

    • allinx

      Evolution is the mechanism of how life has existed and changed, over time. Many fields of Science verify its basics, not just “evolutionists” as you like to refer to. Every precise detail in its workings may or may never be 100% known, but the search is continuing, and more will not be discovered by religious or other indoctrination.
      There is no original Bible. Everything you and anyone knows about the “Christian God” is complete hearsay, taken from peoples, thousands of years ago who were probably like believers today. And then the writings were included or omitted and edited and re-edited by a corrupt Church. So, the Bible came directly through them. The ancients had a good excuse for ignorance, no such excuse today.

      **Creationism believers can’t, or are unwilling to, understand this simple contradiction: You claim scientific curiosity while accepting, in full, exactly what the included ancient writings describe, and those writings do not mention any actual science in it. And you believe that those ancient “scientists” got it all just right. No credible scientist would ever accept, or expect, that they know the world so perfectly that no new information could ever change it, especially after thousands of years.

      But you Do.

      If your God exists, as you say He does, please ask Him to come down and tell us, in person. I, for one, will be grateful, and happy to listen. “Trust but verify.”

      Linwood

      • retiredday

        You state your opinion as fact. And although you are perfectly free to hold any opinion you want, don’t expect your opinion to be respected, when you refuse to consider the evidence of creationism and the Creator. You’ve obviously made up your mind and refuse to be objective.

        “If your God exists, as you say He does, please ask Him to come down and tell us, in person. I, for one, will be grateful, and happy to listen. “Trust but verify.”

        You are deceiving yourself. You would be neither grateful nor happy. The fact is that He has come down and told us in person. But, still, you reject him.

        The Bible, which you mock, tells the story of a man who said: “…if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent”, to which Abraham replied, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” (Luke 16:30-31)

        You’ve already decided to close yourself off from the reality of your Creator and Savior. Again, that’s your choice. But don’t think you are being objective. You are not. Refusing to consider evidence is not being objective.

        • allinx

          You wrote: “You are deceiving yourself. You would be neither grateful nor happy. The fact is that He has come down and told us in person. But, still, you reject him.”
          ——-
          1) Deceive myself? You don’t know me yet you assume that of me? Are you that sorry, that you believe if God actually came down, in person, that I would just disbelieve it or ignore it? I have always wanted to learn what’s true. Talk about demonizing those you don’t agree with!

          2) That He has already come down, shows you do not have any objectivity about it and believe in 2,000 and more years old hearsay. That’s your scientifically derived proof? Believe in God if you want, if it helps you in life, just don’t call it Scientific Curiosity and Evidence. That’s just old Cultural Indoctrination and blind acceptance.

          Did you read the wiki link I sent to your other response of reading something objective. It’s a list of every Science field that verifies Evolution. This website withheld it temporarily, to check it, which is fine, but it’s there now. Please respond to it. And you and DM and Bob can quit this “evolutionists say” bunk. It’s not me who is not objective.

          Linwood

          • retiredday

            I have spent years examining what you call “every Science field that verifies Evolution”. Have you ever examined any of Nancy Pearcey’s books?

            • allinx

              You wrote: “I have spent years examining what you call “every Science field that verifies Evolution”

              And you got nothing from them? Sad, really.

          • retiredday

            Yes, you deceive yourself. You are not objective. You insist on mischaracterizing creation science, you judge the Bible as bunk when you’ve never really studied it and you dismiss God out of had. If you haven’t read Nancy Pearcey, have you read Lee Strobel? William Lane Craig?

            • allinx

              You wrote: “you judge the Bible as bunk”.
              —-
              My words were “‘evolutionists deny bunk”.

              All you mention are religious authors, with their agendas. When I want to know more about Astronomy, I do not read Astrology. When I want to know about the Earth, I do not look up Flat-Earth Science. If I want to know about medicine and health, I do not look up Christian-Science. When I want to know about the Earth, I do not look up Creationism, or Religion, but Geology.

              • retiredday

                You know nothing of what these scholars have written or their qualifications.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        You assume evolution is the mechanism of how life has existed and changed, over time.” You don’t know that. No one knows that. It isn’t that “every precise detail in its workings may or may never be 100% known;” it isn’t KNOWN at all. It has never been observed a single time, either in the field or in the laboratory. You cannot know something as fact that has never been observed a single time. It is pure conjecture.

        The first book of the Bible was written approximately 3,400 years ago. Because not even the best recording material lasts 3,400 years, it has been methodically and painstakingly copied faithfully during that time. The copying methods have been so meticulous and careful that we can compare later copies to earlier copies that are approx. 2,000 years old and they have virtually no differences whatsoever-certainly nothing that changes any significant meaning. And when you consider all that the world where the Bible was authored has been through during that time, all that the Jewish people who authored the book have been through during that time, and all the visceral opposition to the Bible that has been manifested by various people and cultures during that time, frankly it’s a miracle that the Bible has survived at all-much less in such a highly reliable condition.

        It’s amusing to realize that there are many ancient texts and authors for which we have no originals and huge gaps between the authorship and the next closest copy of their works (e.g. The Odyssey, the works of Sophocles, Euripides, etc.)…yet virtually no one makes the same complaints about the reliability of these translations and texts that some make about the Bible. It’s almost as if there was a double-standard…

        Interestingly, the Bible makes a number of historical and scientific claims, and not one of them has been proved to be inaccurate or false. No other piece of writing can come within a thousand light years of that record of reliability and veracity.

        Evolution texts, on the other hand, change continually to “correct” what we “knew” last week for what we know know that we didn’t really “know” (and of course, we’ll just forget about the fact that it was supposedly incontrovertible fact last week, and we now now that we were wrong).

        The first failing of humanity in the flawless Garden of Eden was to refuse to trust in what God had said, that God meant what he said. That occurred in a time when God did in fact walk the earth and humans could talk to him face to face.

        It’s pretty safe to say that even if he did that today, people like you (who almost certainly have far less integrity than Adam and Eve) would still reject his truth. So why should he bother?

        As it stands, in NOT displaying his power and presence on earth, he is better able to separate between (a) people who hold him and his truth in contempt and (b) those who are willing to place their trust in the fact that the Creator of the universe actually knows what he’s talking about.

        Someday, those two groups will be eternally separated. When that happens, you want to be in the latter group. It won’t be pleasant for the former group.

        • allinx

          Though you exaggerate, you are right in saying that Science answers change. That shows the objectivity of Science, because true scientists want to find the truth. I don’t believe in the general theory of Evolution because I want to, but that cannot be said of believers, here. Your unprovable beliefs are immutable. You basically admit it.

          Plus - on one hand it was said here that evolution proponents are basically rigid and closed minded. Then you state and criticize the fact that science answers sometimes change as times go on. Make up your minds.

          You use the Bible as the proof that the Bible is correct. You ignore my points of why god, if He cares, does not come down and make it clear, and that it is hearsay that forms your beliefs. Every religion has its ardent followers.

          You mention “The Odyssey, the works of Sophocles, Euripides, etc.)” These are works of fiction, not fundamentalist religious beliefs.

          You wrote “- - - Bible makes a number of historical and scientific claims, and not one of them has been proved to be inaccurate or false.”
          Really? Name some proven scientific claims in the Bible. Be specific, please.

  • retiredday

    I grasp that you think you possess superior cleverness. I challenge you to apply your claim of objectivity by examining anything written by Nancy Pearcey. You might try “Saving Leonardo”. It’s not as challenging as “Total Truth”.

  • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

    Your link is filled with exactly the kind of pretentious assumption I’ve been talking about here. It’s so myopic, it’s laughable. For a supposedly intelligent person to compile such a list, especially when viable alternative explanations are easily and widely available, well, the term “deliberate ignorance” is the most kind description that comes to mind.

    Your wiki page provides a long list of areas of science, then claims that certain things are KNOWN (when in fact they are assumed in most cases, and cannot be known to be true during times and circumstances in the past, and in many cases cannot even be known in the modern age), then attempts to pass off assumption as fact, and finally claims that the Genesis account can’t possibly be true because it’s statements are not possible according to the assumptions of people who are hostile toward the Bible.

    Put another way, you’re saying: “The Bible can’t possibly be accurate. Its claims aren’t possible according to my assumption and conjecture regarding science and history.”

    Real convincing (in your own mind).

    You should try a little objectivity and logic for a change. It’s very refreshing.