As a native Ohioan and longtime creationist watcher, of course I'm morbidly fascinated with (and dismayed by) the opening of the new Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I'm not going to give a full response to its ridiculous "science;" others have done that across the blogosphere (collected by PZ here). However, you may have seen the New York Time's particularly bad piece on the museum opening (if you haven't, you can find it here), where the writer--instead of commenting on the atrocious science--lauds the museum's "daring" more than once, for example. Well, John Hawks has dug up a reason why, perhaps, the reporter was so uncritical:
So I got to thinking, hmmm.... Why did the Times send their culture reporter [Edward Rothstein] to cover this museum in such a friendly way, when they assigned science reporter John Noble Wilford to cover this year's opening of the new Human Origins Hall at the American Museum of Natural History? I mean, they're on the same subject, right? Shouldn't they get the same reviewer?And then I saw Rothstein's article from today's paper -- reviewing another new exhibit at the AMNH:
They lure children into dank swamps and devour them. They live in caves or among high rocks or deep in dense forests. They are covered with scales or thick fur. They have hands at the ends of their tails or a single glaring eye. They exhale fire, cause hurricanes with their wings or feast on human eyes, teeth and nails. They might also whimsically help the unwitting, but they are almost all mercurial, unreliable, tricksters.
Such are the mythic creatures of our earth.
Ah-ha! This is all becoming clear now. The Times wasn't really softballing the Answers in Genesis museum. It's just that Rothstein covers the unicorn and dragon beat!
Brilliant.
- Log in to post comments
I had planned on going to take pictures in order to document this travesty against knowledge, knowing that there was a mild chance that some of my students will have been exposed to Ken and his Hamster follower's nuttery. I saw some pre-openning day photos and a description of the exhibits and realized that it was so poorly set up, there was no reason to even bother.
2 PETER 3
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
So, absolute (so aptly named), are you inferring that merely questioning the validity of Genesis damns you to eternal hellfire? I suspect the author of 2 Peter had bigger transgressions in mind than critizing Ken Ham's folly.
Maybe people who don't "believe" in evolution, just haven't had it happen to them yet...
This is one of the most exciting things that's come our way in my lifetime. I was raised believing that I "came" from a monkey, or a speck of dust or some other thingy. It wasn't until I began to study creationism that I learned the truth. But, I'm OK with others' views. I don't understand why the creation museum is being attacked with such vile. We don't advocate picketing conventional museums. Can't we just all get along.?
with the NFL & rock-n-roll hall of fame, the reds, the indians,the browns&bengals, and some of the best amusement parks...ohio is a place to go..........oh don't forget to swing by Creation Museum just to see it. It is less expensive than any of the previous to attend.
ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG is site
I'd rather have cool one and a chili dog at Riverfront Stadium, if it's all the same to you, RayJ. Better use of my limited funds.
why is the earth placed perfectly where it is and if anything happened we would be destroyed. No scientist can tell you who the lawgiver is. They search space for millions of miles hope to find life.
Isaiah45:18 written long ago says
For this is what the LORD says--
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited--
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other.
ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG visit the web site
For quite a few years I had once believed in the fallacy of evolution, when questioning certain aspects which had gotten my attention, not one had an answer, or the answer had no standing , nor applied tested science behind it. But after I got right in my head and in my heart, I found out about AiG and other Creation organizations, and found that the questions that I had, had answers when you looked at origins in the light of the Bible.
It truly surprises me that all of the atheists and evolutionists congregate at this site when there are at least 3 others within this country that I know of, and have never received the attention that AiG's Creation Museum is getting (of course this could be a positive thing).
There are tons of good, clean science that has been applied when the Light of God is used. But, when men, like Hawkings and Dawkins looks at the evidence before themselves without God, they only sees what they want to see, then tries to apply science to it, and fails miserably.
The Creation model is only ridiculed due to those who (with wishful thinking) believe that there is no God. But, within each an every one of them, they know that they are wrong, and they can deny it all they want, but they only lie to themselves and cannot face their own selfish pride.
As for the theistic evolutionists, they have no ground to stand on either. You either believe in the Bible in its entirety or you do not believe, that's all there is to it. If you question the validity of the Word of God, then your faith is false, there is no way around it, and in my opinion, those that call themselves theistic evolutionists are a bane to the Christian faith. The Word of God should not be compromised with the so-called intelligence of man.
If you want to prove some theory wrong, then I advise to do some research on both Creation and evolution instead of just taking somebodies word for it.
You just may be surprised at the outcome.
May God be with you all, and whether you believe in Him or not?
He believes in you.
I know I shouldn't even bother, but for the benefit of any lurkers...
Bryan, could you give examples of the questions no one had answers for? Could the reason no one could give you answers, perhaps, be because you simply refused to accept them as "the so-called intelligence of man" ? Would any answer satisfy you that you felt went against your religious beliefs?
Interesting comment, given that you do that exact same thing by simply taking AiG's word for their own claims. Recall that many of us here actually *have* done real scientific research involving evolutionary theory--have you?
tommy,
This is a museum literally turning science on its head--so of course, scientists are going to be upset at the distortions that are made of their chosen fields. And while you may not "advocate picketing conventional museums," there are indeed many creationist groups that go to museums and provide their own "tours," essentially saying that all the science there is false. Will AiG allow "scientifically correct" alternative tours to take place there?
RayJ,
Are you visiting here to quote Scripture or to discuss the matter as an adult with a brain?
If the earth were placed differently, we would not be here to debate the matter. The fact that it's in the solar system's "sweet spot" for liquid water is not evidence for the idea it was deliberately placed there for our benefit.
We could be destroyed "if anything happened," like an asteroid collision. How does that support the idea the earth was created supernaturally? Wouldn't God prefer to protect us from such cataclysmic events, so He could hammer us Himself?
Scientists do not look for the "lawgiver," since that idea falls outside the role of science. So, they are not likely to find him/her/it/them. They do look for the "laws" that seem to operate in the universe.
The other planets are as far as we know lifeless. Did God create them to be inhabited? If he did, Venus was a big mistake.
When the Book of Isaiah was written, people had no concept that Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were worlds orbiting the sun. They were star-like points of light in the heavens. Nor did they have any notion that the stars might have planets orbiting them. We know differently now, unless you want to argue that astronomical imagery is all fake.
You will not convince anyone the Creation Museum is scientifically correct by quoting chapter and verse and citing the AiG site. Try rational dialogue instead.
BryanE -
Your definition of faith is very narrow, and I would suggest overly judgmental, friend. And like many Biblical literalists, you are cherry picking. In other words, you say we must understand Genesis as the literal truth, but meanwhile we can ignore the laws that permitted, for example, slavery and the stoning of adulterers. By your definition, a large proportion of the world's Christians would have "false faith," since they interpret the Genesis allegorically. Some, like the Catholics, include additional books that Protestant Bibles do not, and many no longer use the KJV. Which Bible is more literal?
In my tradition, the Word of God is Jesus. The Bible contains the words of God, which form only part of the basis of a person's faith and understanding.
Meanwhile, your scientific arguments are very muddled. I hope you can respond to Tara's questions.
BryanE -
Your definition of faith is very narrow, and I would suggest overly judgmental, friend. And like many Biblical literalists, you are cherry picking. In other words, you say we must understand Genesis as the literal truth, but meanwhile we can ignore the laws that permitted, for example, slavery and the stoning of adulterers. By your definition, a large proportion of the world's Christians would have "false faith," since they interpret the Genesis allegorically. Some, like the Catholics, include additional books that Protestant Bibles do not, and many no longer use the KJV. Which Bible is more literal?
In my tradition, the Word of God is Jesus. The Bible contains the words of God, which form only part of the basis of a person's faith and understanding.
Meanwhile, your scientific arguments are very muddled. I hope you can respond to Tara's questions.
I was not always a Christian, and I studied evolution longer than I studied Creation, and the Creation model as of today makes better sense (and the science behind it made science fun again).
Astrological evolution theory states that the solar system was created from a spinning mass of hot gases some 2 billion years ago, if that were true why does Venus spin backward, and one other spin on its side. Satellites (moons), some spin against the orbit of the host planet or not at all (like our own moon). Does the Law of Circular Momentum not apply.
The moon is traveling away from earth at 1.5 in. per year(give or take), anyway if we take into account this loss and go backwards in time, say approx. 1,000,000 years, we would probably see that moon rolling around on the surface of the earth, anyway if the earth was some 2 billion years old, we should not have a moon, and don't get me started on the rings of Saturn.
As for your evolutionary research, there does need to be somewhat of a separation of terms.
Micro-evolution, I have no problem with, that can be witnessed, and every scientist, whether or not they believe in Creation will also agree on that point.
But as for the theory of Macro-evolution there have been no intermediary transitional forms found, and if this planet has contained life on it as evolutionists state, then we should be finding these fossils every where, and we do not.
As for me going to a prestigious university, and working in this field, No, I have not, but that does not stop me from following up on the latest scientific reports, whether it be evolutionary or creationist views, that come across my table. I am just little more than an amateur in the field, but an amateur that has been studying evolution and creation for more than 35 years, and there is not just one field of science that sparks my interest. I don't mean to put down what you or others do for a living, everyone within the scientific community is doing a fine job. I'm only saying, why does evolution have to be the only theory in this world.
And another thing, AiG is not the only organization out there.
And I take nobodies word for anything, evolutionist or creationist.
If evolution was so factually based I probably would have stayed in that point of view, and would have attended the hundreds of protesters at the opening of the museum. But as for now, evolution has no legs nor wings nor feathers.
Just because someone doesn't believe in evolution doesn't make them a pseudo-scientist, nor the other way around, its just that there is no science within macro-evolution, its all what they call educated guesses, they only see what they want too as long as "God does not have a divine foot in the door", and that to me is just not good enough, and to any real scientist, and anyone that questions either theory, that should not be good enough for them either.
Creation demands questions, but the theory of evolution says that you either believe or your only fooling yourself.
That is not science. That too is faith, therefore evolution is a religious organization in itself. State sanctioned, Tax paid religion.
hey wheatdogg,
its not my word, dufus, its the Word of God.
The Bible demands that we believe in it wholly.
I prefer the original Hebrew text myself, and have found that if you read the KJV, in the way it was meant to be read, that is without the meaning of modern word usage, but in the usage of the 17th century (by the way, you can find a dictionary for the words used that far back)then just maybe you may see that the Word of God means exactly what it says.
As for cherry-picking, I think not young padawan, I believe every single word, and I stand by it.
As for my views on Creation and evolution, they may be erratic, I do enjoy all aspects of science, so I have no one field that I prefer.
God said it, I believe it. I question God NOT.
He states 6 days, I believe 6-24 hour days, he states that there was a earth covering flood, I believe it.
If Christians are required to believe in a man that was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died upon a cross, rose from the dead 3 days later, and was witnessed by hundreds to ascend into heaven, why is it so hard to believe in the events that happened within the first chapter of Genesis?
And by the way, Christ did state that narrow is the way.
Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will see the Kingdom of Heaven.
If I am wrong, so be it, but within me is something that I have never felt before, and I love the presence of God in my life.
No, it doesn't. Try about 4.6 BYA.
You couldn't find easily google-able answers like this one?
I'm not sure what all you're saying here--a million years ago the moon should have been "rolling around on the surface of the earth" ? You should check out this Talk.Origins page which addresses the young earth/moon argument. Additionally, again the age of the earth is ~4.5 billion years, not 2.
Even your buddies at AiG say not to use this argument. Where exactly would you put the dividing line between "micro" and "macro" evolution, Bryan? And how would you define a "transitional" fossil? Hmm, lizards with feathers? Whales with legs? Sound pretty transitional to me; why do you dismiss these? What about evidence from molecular genetics that provides evidence for common descent--evidence that had already been inferred from comparison of body types and other "macro" features?
BryanE, How about the 8th (or 9th depending on your denomination) commandment? Don't lie?
As long as creationists spread lies about the evidence for evolution, you are sinning. Your only hope against self damnation is that you don't know any better.
Didn't Jesus berate his disciples as being too dense to understand his parables? Could it be that Genesis is a parable that you are too dense to get?
But don't take this atheist's word for it. Pick up a science text and start reading.
BryanE writes
How do you know God said it? Just because the parts of the bible claim to be 'the word of God'? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the bible never makes the claim to be inerrant.) If you read 'The Waterbabies' by Charles Kingsley you will see it starts by saying it is all true. Why do you disbelieve one book that insists it is true and unquestionably believe another book that does not even make a similar claim?
You assert you believe the entirety of the bible, yet in Genesis there are two contrasting versions of the creation story. How do you reconcile them?
You have been studying evolution for 35 years yet can make a silly statement like this? Either you are lying or you have a strange idea of what constitutes a transitional fossil. How would you define a transitional fossil?
Why do creationists have this boring fixation on such a limited range of evidence (fossils, distance of the moon) when there is so much more evidence that you could claim does not exist? Things like the nested hierarchies of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry, broken genes, parasites, biogeography and the rest. Come on - let's see some imagination and some indication that you've actually looked at the evidence, not just relied on good old Answers in Genesis.
BryanE:
I may be arguing with a brick wall here, but here are my responses to some of your comments.
"I was not always a Christian, and I studied evolution longer than I studied Creation, and the Creation model as of today makes better sense (and the science behind it made science fun again)."
I have always found science fun, without invoking God as Creator. Given the overwhelming evidence against a 6-day Creation several thousands of years ago, I do not find that Genesis makes scientific sense. It's a nice story, though. And as I tell my students, not everything has to be "fun" to be worthwhile.
"Astrological evolution theory states that the solar system was created from a spinning mass of hot gases some 2 billion years ago, if that were true why does Venus spin backward, and one other spin on its side."
The age of the Solar System is closer to 4.6 By, according to reliable radioisotope dating and our understanding of the physics involved. Most of the objects orbiting the sun rotate in the same sense, but a few do not, probably because of violent collisions with massive objects early in the system's formation. In fact, the moons of the larger planets also share the same mutual rotational direction, as do the extrasolar planets discovered so far.
"Does the Law of Circular Momentum not apply."
It's called the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum, which says AM is constant in the absence of external torques. Getting slammed by a large celestial object would certainly qualify as an external torque.
"The moon is traveling away from earth at 1.5 in. per year(give or take), anyway if we take into account this loss and go backwards in time, say approx. 1,000,000 years, we would probably see that moon rolling around on the surface of the earth, anyway if the earth was some 2 billion years old, we should not have a moon, and don't get me started on the rings of Saturn."
That rate is not linear, AFAIK, and only applies to the current epoch. Creeping away from the earth at that rate to an orbit roughly 240,000 miles out would require about 10 By, so the rate is probably decreasing. Tidal forces between the earth and moon account for the moon's travel. The rotation of the earth is slowing down at the same time; billions of years from now the earth will rotate at the same rate as the moon revolves around it -- known as tidal locking. Those same tidal forces are partly responsible for the rings of the gas giants.
"why does evolution have to be the only theory in this world."
It does not have to be, but it is the best scientific theory currently available to us. There is substantial physical evidence supporting it, and it agrees with the timelines provided by geology, astrophysics and cosmology. I cannot say the same for creation "theory."
"Creation demands questions, but the theory of evolution says that you either believe or your only fooling yourself."
Isn't it the other way around? When we question creation science, you folks get all up in arms and suggest we are bound for eternal damnation for questioning the word of God. How scientific is that?
And you don't believe in a scientific theory, you accept it. Belief is associated with faith.
"... therefore evolution is a religious organization in itself. State sanctioned, Tax paid religion."
That statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin to respond.
part 2 of my responses
Gosh, I haven't been called "dufus" since junior high. I'm glad to see we have elevated the quality of discourse here to such high levels.
Thank you calling me a "young padawan." For the record, I entered junior high almost 40 years ago, but I guess I'm still young at heart. If you believe every single word, that's your right and your choice. I do not, which is also my right and my choice. There is no Biblical injunction that we need to read all of it literally, AFAIK. In fact, many theologians do not interpret Song of Songs literally, since it is pretty racy in parts.
Well, if I don't accept the first part of what you say, it's a little hard to swallow Genesis whole, too. Not every part of the Bible is historical truth. Jesus did not insist his mother was a virgin, or that he was King of the Jews. Others made those associations.
Indeed He did. The question here is how narrow that way is, and which path it is. I don't recall Jesus ever telling his followers they must read the Torah literally. He certainly never told them to read the NT that way! I respect your faith, but please do not try to dictate belief here. The Bible is not a scientific text, any more than the Laws of Motion provide a moral code.
2 PETER 3
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
THIS IS WHAT THE UNIFORMITARIANS (THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN GUYS) SAY....THINGS NOW ARE LIKE THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
THE FLOOD MENTIONED HERE
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Indeed, it is. The Rock Hall, Browns, Indians, etc. are located in Cleveland. And while you're in Cleveland, you can also visit the Science Museum, the Museum of Natural History, or attend a Case Western Reserve University lecture among other things. From a cultural standpoint, Cleveland is both geographically and politically far removed from its sister cities to the south.
The Creation Museum, OTOH, happens to be located in Kentucky. Kentucky can have it. Methinks some people need to visit a map of the United States. Please visit Mything Links to learn more about creation myths.
Damn, Tara, you got a sign on your lawn says "Dead Crank Storage"? You do seem to attract them...
To the creationist(s?):
You seem like the Young Earth type. Tell me what the deal is with Oklo.
And even if you're not young earthers, explain why a whale with legs or a dinosaur with feathers (or, in a more currently extant example, maybe a squirrel with built-in paragliders) does not qualify as a transitional form. Or a Tiktaalik (or a lungfish, or a snakehead, or a flying fish). Or tell me why despite obvious structural similarities between cephalochordates and vertebrates, the DNA evidence points to the (sessile and highly simplified) tunicates as actually being closer to basal vertebrates.
RayJ,
Why don't you quote the next verse of 2 Peter 3?
Is Peter implying that God took 6000 years to create Heaven and Earth, herbs and animals, Adam and Eve? How does Creationism account for verses like this one?
The moment the evolutionist goes from micro to macro-evolution...he has left science and gone to faith, for no one has ever seen one kind change to another.
What disturbs me is how they over the years have gone about proving it. I think much worse was done in the past by them than what the creation museum is doing.
See 1st post...which is by the way my stuff with some research as to the men who actually did what they did.
From Peppered moths...a lie
to huey experiment
to hinckels drawings
to too much to mention
is really a equally worse service to science that the creation museum could ever pose
FROM ANOTHER POST....WORTH REPEATING
you said it Sister SAID
Beautfiul!
Very well said and profound.
True, however, I know of no one who actually saw God create Heaven and Earth. So it seems to me that Creationism has a similar problem as "macroevolution," except macro relies on an extensive fossil record and genetics to support its arguments. You have (a) an ancient religious text and (b) bend-over-backwards interpretations of the same evidence.
I have not been able to watch the continents smash into each other in real time, but I know it happens from the seismic and geological evidence. That's not faith; it's reason.
I can't see the "fixed" stars move relative to each other -- the Big Dipper now still looks like the Dipper of my youth. Yet I know the stars move, albeit slowly, from the careful measurements made by astronomers over many years. That's not faith; it's reason.
I am not a biologist, but to me it's perfectly reasonable to accept macroevolution as a valid theory, since I also accept the corollary theory that it takes millions of years for organisms to evolve.
Why is it so hard for you?
RayJ/absolute,
The moment the evolutionist goes from micro to macro-evolution...he has left science and gone to faith, for no one has ever seen one kind change to another.
Not so. Speciation by nondisjunction has been observed in plants. In reality, as speciation not involving nondisjunction occurs over a large number of generations, observing a population of chimpanzee-like apes evolve into human-like hominids would actually be evidence against evolution.
In quickly reproducing organisms, such as mosquitoes, speciation has been observed within our time.
Macroevolution and evidence thereof can be observed within the fossil record, via comparative genetics, biogeography, comparisons of extant species, etc, despite what you believe. You are welcome to your own beliefs, but not your own facts.
BTW, I hope you are aware that the micro/macro argument falls within the list of claims that creationists say that other creationists should not use?
See 1st post...which is by the way my stuff with some research as to the men who actually did what they did.
Your first post? You mean the Bible is your work? Wow. I always wondered who wrote that. Seriously, you have posted nothing of your own, except your personal business page, nor any information regarding anyone.
From Peppered moths...a lie
Peppered Moth color patterns do change. Peppered Moths do rest on tree trunks, branches and branch joints. The photos in the original article (followed up by thousands) were staged, but show what the moths look like in the wild.
to huey experiment
Which Huey? Which experiment? A Boondocks episode comes to mind...
to hinckels drawings
You mean Haeckel, right? His drawings are incorrect, and are only used to point out that bad work is found out and replaced with good. The fact is, there are important similarities between embryos of different species within the same lineage. This becomes even more evident when you go to the molecular level and study the genes that control embryonic development.
to too much to mention
Then why couldn't you come up with one good one?
is really a equally worse service to science that the creation museum could ever pose
The museum isn't a threat to science, but it is a threat to science education and scientific literacy in the US. It is also a threat to Christianity as a whole, as long as dishonesty rules the day.
I would suggest that you look up the Talk Origins website in order to learn more about the science behind evolution. Your previous posts have shown that you have relied on some very dishonest or confused sources. Picking up a copy of the Counter Creationism Handbook would be a good idea. It is by the same writer as the Talk Origins website. I rely on it pretty often when I need to look up a creationist claims, and looked up some of yours in it. If you want to hold to the line of creationism, at least learn enough about the science to know what claims are plainly false.
absolute--define "kind".
Presumably we need to brush up on our baramin taxonomy for a definition of "kinds".
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html
This pseudoscientific construct is the creationists' attempt to explain away the physical impossibility of housing 30 million creatures in an ark for a year with only a single window for ventilation.
And that's just one version. Pretty much every creationist I've discussed this with seems to have their own definition, typically mutually exclusive. And of course, neither manages to deal with actual evidence, such as the fact that different species of E. coli can differ by as much as 30% of their genome (or more, perhaps), while chimps and humans only vary by ~3%. Yet certainly all the E. coli are the same "kind" (some creationists even put *all bacteria* into one "kind"), yet of course chimps and humans are different "kinds."
John Wilkins has a couple of nice discussions regarding Genesis going on right now at his Evolving Thoughts blog. Go on RayJ and absolut, go and have a chat about the implications of a literal reading of Genesis.
BryanE exposed himself thusly: I studied evolution longer than I studied Creation, and the Creation model as of today makes better sense...
There's your problem right there bud. You assume that what makes sense to you is most likely to be correct. Cutting edge science will often lead to conclusions that are not going to make sense to you at all. Sometimes it willbe because you lack the necessary underlying knowledge that led to it. If I gave you a graduate calculus/chemistry/physics text that had errors sprinkled around in it, would you be able to identify them? Of course not. So what makes you think you are capable of seeing errors that evolutionary biologist miss? How many errors is some random guy walking down the street able to recognize in your line of work? Get real.
Other times it happens because, sorry, that's just the way it is. Reality is not obligated to make sense to us. The solution to the Monte Hall problem doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Neither does the disproof of the Kalam argument. Quantum physics doesn't make sense to anyone (hat tip Dick Feynman). So what makes you assume that biological reality is going to make sense to you?
If anyone doubts the damage that can be done by promoting faith, here is Exhibit A. It slides right into the belief that one can grasp any subject, no matter how complicated, after a few minutes reflection.
the fact that scentists fight so vehemitly about creationisism makes me realize that the bible and all that is says is true if i were to worship mickey mouse or say hail to bugs bunny the ruler of the universe that would only get a few people going but say something that lines up with the bible and you have all of the scientific community in arms against you it is a fool who has said in his heart that God does not exist and i guess as long as harvard dissallows christians from being active on their campus they will continue to crank out fools there is enough evidence to prove that the bible's account of the creation is real but that evidence as fast as it is found is being dissallowed in the academic halls of america we who have started so well in the truth now are departing from the truth know this that a nation without truth is a nation in emense trouble of not lasting the roman empire is no more the greek empire is no more the egyptian empire is no more but bible and christianity have outlasted them all john lennon said in about twenty years they will round up the last christian and put him on display in some zoo or musem somewhere now john lennon is no more and christianity has grown to two billion billions can,t be wrong they have doubled in the last twenty years