Feedback

Winning the war

I know you've heard of Judge Roy Moore and his stand for the Ten Commandments display in his courthouse:

[Link deleted per feedback rules]

Today I spent two hours in the Indiana State Museum looking at the new displays...hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money spent on evolutionary teaching and propaganda. I marvelled as I considered the MILLIONS spent every year in this country on the false religion of evolution. It's amazing that they complain about one display in the Alabama courthouse. I think if we could ever get evolution officially declared a religion, we'd be half way to winning the war.

Keep up the good work!

D.
US

‘So much for the level of “science”!’

Dear Sirs,

I find your web-pages quite interesting, but, maybe, not for the reasons you would like to hear.
Recently you re-printed an article from the “scientific” TJ-magazine [now Journal of Creation—Ed.], written by a 14-year old boy [referring to 14-year-old publishes in science journal—Ed.]. So much for the level of “science”!

This young man has an exceptional knowledge for a 14yo. So can you find any actual errors in the article Genetics and Biblical demographic events?

Actually, it would seem to me that most of the articles on your web-pages could well have been written by 12 - 14 year olds!

At the risk of underrating that age stratum of humanity, you might in fact be more typical of that age range, being totally fact-free.

Also, your way of attacking those who point out factual errors in the articles (ref. the two gentlemen who found an abundance of errors and misunderstandings in the articles about Chinese characters)

More likely, that which Dr Batten thoroughly demolished, and you don't want to accept that (see CMI misrepresents ancient Chinese language? and CMI still misrepresents ancient Chinese language?

... does not fit a Christian.

What exactly does fit a Christian? I would have thought that it was following Christ, and he never minced words. See also Answering some Hugh Ross supporters, “Love” (agape) in the Bible and Is it 'un-Christian' to Engage in Satire?

In any case, your efforts are doomed to fail. The theory of evolution has, over the last 150 years or so, only been strengthened by new finds.

Nice piece of elephant hurling. A typical bald fact-free assertion. Why not provide even one such find?

Today, particularly in the fields of biology and genetics, with advanced analysis of DNA, we can trace our ancestors with a degree of certainty that was impossible only a few years ago.

No you can't. All you can do is note similarities and differences between the DNA. The ancestor tracing is based on the assumption that common ancestry evolution explains the observed DNA similarities. But common design is a better explanation—see Common structures = common ancestry?

As for an old earth and universe, just look at astronomy and geology.

I have looked, and I see stars and rocks. None of these have labels saying they are billions of years old. We don't see age; rather, we interpret various features as being caused by physical processes occurring in the past, and given certain assumptions, age is inferred. But this inference is only as good as the assumptions. See The earth: how old does it look?

Your writers seem to have very limited knowledge in these fields.

Oh right, right. I suppose Ph.D. astronomers like Drs Danny Faulkner and Ron Samec [and Dr Jason Lisle—Ed.] would have very limited knowledge of astonomy? And Ph.D. geologists like Drs Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin would have very limited geological knowledge?

Slightly better than your colleague "dr." Kent Hovind [link deleted per feedback rules], though!

Not sure how you define ‘colleague’—a fellow creationist, certainly, but see Maintaining Creationist Integrity.

The ONLY page I can approve of is the one listing arguments NOT be used against evolutionists. However, this page should be extended to include ALL arguments you are using on all the other pages as ALL of them are invalid!

Oh really? Leaving aside the fact that you seem to not understand the difference between validity and truth (see Logic and Creation), that's a rash universal claim. So where is the flaw in our argument that a beetle born without wings on a windy island has a selective advantage in that it won't be blown into the sea, but that this is still an informationally downhill change so provides no support for evolution from goo to you via the zoo—see Beetle Bloopers? Remember, you claimed that ALL our arguments are invalid, which means you need to find a flaw in every one!

Evolution is a proven fact!

Than go ahead and prove it, not just talk about it.

You may not like it, but it is hopeless to attack science with childish arguments that easily can be disproven.

Regards

I've never attacked science in my life, and I suspect that I'm substantially better qualified in science than you! But I readily attack materialistic philosophy impersonating science.

Regards

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.