General Response
I just wanted to write a general response to everyone on this blog. Man you guys sure are hard to keep up with ;), its kinda hard for one person to take on all of this. So I will do my best to sort things out here in one general post to everyone. First of all I would like to talk a little bit about what idealogy I'm coming from. I thought someone had called me Napolean for being a Christian, but I was mistaken, they were just joking around. I'm so used to talking to people during street evangelism that call me Hitler, a Nazi, or think Catholocism represents what the Bible teaches and Christianity as a whole. So the first thing I would like to do is clear a few things up, just because I feel some of you may cling to these associations and it just doesn't represent me or most Christians. Just as I would think that you would not want to be called a Social Dawinist because of the fact that you believe in evolution.
First of all, Catholocism is different from Christianity. Catholocism is pagan Roman traditions with Christian names and titles, and forms of "worship" attached to it. Catholocism and Bible believing Christianity are two completely different things. In fact, most of the early reformers and the early protestant churches had confessions of faith that included the Pope as being the man of sin, the antichrist, or Satan's chief represenative on Earth (even though they don't believe that anymore). The Catholic church burned more protestants and other groups of bible believers than any other group. An organization that was created by a Caesar 300 years after Christ should not be viewed as respresenting Him. In fact, they banned the Bible from being in the hands of common folk, and hired a guy name Guy Faux to try and blow up King James and the British Parlaiment for publishing the bible in common english, getting it out to the masses, and breaking from Rome. Even just 60 years ago the Catholic church was guilty for funding and supporting Adolf Hitler, and helping the Nazi's escape through Monastaries. For more details on the true nature of the Bible vs. Catholocism I recommend reading the Antichrist Slideshow, make sure you turn on your speakers for it! http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti1.htm
Now lets get talking about Evolution and some of the objections I read and wanted to respond too. First of all I wanted to talk about the Nature of Science and the Scientific Revolution. I know that some of you think that people like me will fling us back into the Dark Ages, because you need to believe in the religion of evolution in order to progress, well look at Werner Von Braun. He basically started the space age and he believed in Intellegent Design and felt inspired by God, read his letters here. http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4vonbraun.htm
Again I will strongly urge you to watch the antichrist slideshow and realize that it was Catholocism that started the dark ages and not bible-believing Christianity. Now concerning what was the direct agent of the scientific revolution I would like to raise an alternative viewpoint. Secular universities like to rewrite history and make it appear as if the illuminist inspired "enlightenment" philosophy brought us to where we are today. This is biased history. Lets say 1000 years from now people are studying late 20th and early 21st century man. They discover a great push to explore outer space. They also see a group called the Raelians who believe that we were created by aliens and we need to get to outerspace to reconcile with them. Would it be logical and fair for them to say since the Raelians were so driven in their beliefs and so different from the status quo of the time that they must have been behind the dawning of the space age? No. Neither is it fair to call the most extreme viewpoint in the enlightenment era what brought us to where we are today. There were scientists on both sides, Bible believing Christians, Humanists, and all different shades in between that contributed to the advancement of science. In fact no where is the extreme Illuminists enlightenment viewpoint more out in the open than in the bloodbath known as the French Revolution. It got to the point where they killed the clergy and put a prostitute in the pulpit covered in a sheet, holding a torch that they called "the goddess of reason". (Many have considered that the gift given to us by two french freemasons known as the statue of liberty is actually a symbol of this "goddess of reason".) So talk about catapulting the world into barbarism and a bloody mess, moral relativism if it was acted out and not just talked about as sounding "open and tolerant" would do that to the world in 5 seconds.
Now to Biblical Christianities influence on the progress of science I want to point a few things out. Stephen Hawkins in his book on Time said how it was remarkable how St. Augustine (a man I don't 100% agree with) said that Time had a beginning and that God was beyond time. This is because science up until recently thought time was infinite, and that it is true that if there is a transcendant God he would have to be beyond time. He derived this concept out of scripture and many after him did too, because of the fact that messianic prophecies about Christ (which were considered messianic prophecies before Christ as the rabbincle texts known as the Haggahdah reveals) show God is above and beyond time and how many of them are said in future, past, and present tense demonstrating that he is above our concept of time. Because of this and other reasons, the Reformers believed the scriptures to be the authoritative Word of God the source of our theological and cosmological concepts. This caused them to take a rather Objective view of existence. See for thousands of years people got their Theological and Cosmological concepts from the mystical experiences and reasoning of priests, shamans, and other gnostic people. The protestant reformers and the early Christian church rejected this because of the fact that people call fall under spiritual deception and the deception of their own limited sinful minds. They had an objective view of spiritual things and... physical things. This is why you see the average devout Christian in the enlightenment period pursuing scientific endeavors as a hobby. For example look at Jonathan Edwards the famous revivalist. He was an evangelist and in his spare time studied science and went on to be the dean of Princeton. In fact, most ivy league schools and universities were founded to promote scientific endeavors and to also educate in the scriptures. You see the two going hand in hand in that era, the Bible as our objective, authoritative source outside of ourselves to rely on for spiritual and cosmological truth. Then the scientific method as our objective, authoritative source outside of ourselves as our source of truth in discovering and exploring the physical world. So while you may disagree with the reformers view on scipture from a historical and a sociological perspective it is obvious the reformation and the freedom that came with it was a driving force in the scientific revolution. Just look at Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Nicolaus Steno, Sir Isaac Newton, Carlos Linneas, Samuel F.D. Morse, James Simpson, Louis Pasteur, and Henry Margenau.
Now on to the more direct objections to the scientific information I posted. Concerning the Polonium Halos yes Polonium 218 does have a half life of 3.05 minutes as show here. http://science.howstuffworks.com/radon1.htm . The reason why this is significant in Granite is because of the simple fact there is no parent element in the halos. Only the Polonium 218 halo is present. This is interesting because it is found in granite all around the world. Granite also has to be solid in order for the polonium to leave these halos behind. Therefore since it is found all around the world it is obvious that when the granite was first created Polonium 218 was involved. This also points to the fact that the granite must have been fully solidified before 3 minutes were up in order for the halos to appear. This would seem to discredit the idea that granite cooled slowly and gradually over millions of years.
Now on to Transitional forms. I won't spend very much time going into depth on this. Most of you may know that as a creationist I don't believe in macro-evolution. I do believe in Micro-Evolution but I object to the term as I view it as just a euphamism that is used to get people to believe in Macro-Evolution. I believe that each basic Phyla of animal responds and adapts to the stresses and changes in the environment through natural selection. This causes variation to occur, and it even occurs with humans creating different what we call "races", but we are still of course all human. I believe that in any one particular environment each type of animal has an optimum species or sub-species rather, that it will change into, but thats as far as it goes. If a dog migrates up to the artic it will adapt to its environment and certain traits will become more dominant in its descendants through natural selection making the best fit to survive, survive. However it will get to its optimum capacity to adapt to that particular environment and will stop. Ask any breeder of animals, there are limitations on variation. Then if it goes to a warmer climate, it will continue to change to adapt to its optimum form in that environment. Because of this we find all sorts of fossils that appear slightly different from, lets say certain monkeys and aquatic life we see right now. This is not because they are transitioning to something completely different but are extinct variations of the same basic type of animal. When you are operating under evolutionary assumptions it is easy to exagerate these differences and invoke a NEW UNCESSARY ENTITY called Macro-evolution to explain away the obvious fact it is just the remains of an everday process that happens to all animals. Also consider penguins, if they went extinct and were discovered fossilized they might be considered a transition between fish and birds. Sea lions and walruses might be considered between land animals and aquatic. But they both exist now, and aren't going anywhere, God created them that way. The facts are that there should be millions of transitional forms all over the world, if evolution is true we should find transitional forms more than anything else. By the way the whole micro-evolution vs. variety argument also applies to the flood as I see that question was asked. Noah would only have had to bring one dog on the ark or maybe a few varieties to keep up a healthy gene pool. Once the dog exited the ark, its descendants through natural selection and adaptation would regenerate all of the different sub-species. Also if you will read the resources that I posted on the flood blog you will find that the best theories on the mechanisms of the flood includes there only being one continent before the flood, the bible doesn't declare it either way. The question of animals in australia is irrelevant. What you are doing is declaring that according to a book you don't believe in or have probably never read, before the catastrophe happened in must have been identicle to the world now. So look at the world now and use that as a model for how the flood happened and Noah got the animals from all the continents that we see now.
Finally I wanted to address the objection that someone said about Neanderthal children looking different and how that proves that Neanderthals were not just people who lived to extremely old ages.
Infant Child Adolecent Adult Elderly
Infant Child Adolecent Adult Elderly
Look at the above comparison chart, the top is human beings now, the bottom is "neanderthals". In the bottom chart Infants stay at the level of infants longer. Because of this while they are in that stage of development they are still eating drinking and growing and gaining in mass. This would cause them to look quite a bit different from human infants now. In fact Dr. Jack Cuozzo predicted this and the Neanderthal children and adolescents fit into his prediction. You can read about this here
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/engis.html
and here
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/centech.html
Finally I had one last question that I wanted to ask you all, because I do think its relavent and I always like to ask it. What do you think about Jesus Christ?
First of all, Catholocism is different from Christianity. Catholocism is pagan Roman traditions with Christian names and titles, and forms of "worship" attached to it. Catholocism and Bible believing Christianity are two completely different things. In fact, most of the early reformers and the early protestant churches had confessions of faith that included the Pope as being the man of sin, the antichrist, or Satan's chief represenative on Earth (even though they don't believe that anymore). The Catholic church burned more protestants and other groups of bible believers than any other group. An organization that was created by a Caesar 300 years after Christ should not be viewed as respresenting Him. In fact, they banned the Bible from being in the hands of common folk, and hired a guy name Guy Faux to try and blow up King James and the British Parlaiment for publishing the bible in common english, getting it out to the masses, and breaking from Rome. Even just 60 years ago the Catholic church was guilty for funding and supporting Adolf Hitler, and helping the Nazi's escape through Monastaries. For more details on the true nature of the Bible vs. Catholocism I recommend reading the Antichrist Slideshow, make sure you turn on your speakers for it! http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti1.htm
Now lets get talking about Evolution and some of the objections I read and wanted to respond too. First of all I wanted to talk about the Nature of Science and the Scientific Revolution. I know that some of you think that people like me will fling us back into the Dark Ages, because you need to believe in the religion of evolution in order to progress, well look at Werner Von Braun. He basically started the space age and he believed in Intellegent Design and felt inspired by God, read his letters here. http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4vonbraun.htm
Again I will strongly urge you to watch the antichrist slideshow and realize that it was Catholocism that started the dark ages and not bible-believing Christianity. Now concerning what was the direct agent of the scientific revolution I would like to raise an alternative viewpoint. Secular universities like to rewrite history and make it appear as if the illuminist inspired "enlightenment" philosophy brought us to where we are today. This is biased history. Lets say 1000 years from now people are studying late 20th and early 21st century man. They discover a great push to explore outer space. They also see a group called the Raelians who believe that we were created by aliens and we need to get to outerspace to reconcile with them. Would it be logical and fair for them to say since the Raelians were so driven in their beliefs and so different from the status quo of the time that they must have been behind the dawning of the space age? No. Neither is it fair to call the most extreme viewpoint in the enlightenment era what brought us to where we are today. There were scientists on both sides, Bible believing Christians, Humanists, and all different shades in between that contributed to the advancement of science. In fact no where is the extreme Illuminists enlightenment viewpoint more out in the open than in the bloodbath known as the French Revolution. It got to the point where they killed the clergy and put a prostitute in the pulpit covered in a sheet, holding a torch that they called "the goddess of reason". (Many have considered that the gift given to us by two french freemasons known as the statue of liberty is actually a symbol of this "goddess of reason".) So talk about catapulting the world into barbarism and a bloody mess, moral relativism if it was acted out and not just talked about as sounding "open and tolerant" would do that to the world in 5 seconds.
Now to Biblical Christianities influence on the progress of science I want to point a few things out. Stephen Hawkins in his book on Time said how it was remarkable how St. Augustine (a man I don't 100% agree with) said that Time had a beginning and that God was beyond time. This is because science up until recently thought time was infinite, and that it is true that if there is a transcendant God he would have to be beyond time. He derived this concept out of scripture and many after him did too, because of the fact that messianic prophecies about Christ (which were considered messianic prophecies before Christ as the rabbincle texts known as the Haggahdah reveals) show God is above and beyond time and how many of them are said in future, past, and present tense demonstrating that he is above our concept of time. Because of this and other reasons, the Reformers believed the scriptures to be the authoritative Word of God the source of our theological and cosmological concepts. This caused them to take a rather Objective view of existence. See for thousands of years people got their Theological and Cosmological concepts from the mystical experiences and reasoning of priests, shamans, and other gnostic people. The protestant reformers and the early Christian church rejected this because of the fact that people call fall under spiritual deception and the deception of their own limited sinful minds. They had an objective view of spiritual things and... physical things. This is why you see the average devout Christian in the enlightenment period pursuing scientific endeavors as a hobby. For example look at Jonathan Edwards the famous revivalist. He was an evangelist and in his spare time studied science and went on to be the dean of Princeton. In fact, most ivy league schools and universities were founded to promote scientific endeavors and to also educate in the scriptures. You see the two going hand in hand in that era, the Bible as our objective, authoritative source outside of ourselves to rely on for spiritual and cosmological truth. Then the scientific method as our objective, authoritative source outside of ourselves as our source of truth in discovering and exploring the physical world. So while you may disagree with the reformers view on scipture from a historical and a sociological perspective it is obvious the reformation and the freedom that came with it was a driving force in the scientific revolution. Just look at Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Nicolaus Steno, Sir Isaac Newton, Carlos Linneas, Samuel F.D. Morse, James Simpson, Louis Pasteur, and Henry Margenau.
Now on to the more direct objections to the scientific information I posted. Concerning the Polonium Halos yes Polonium 218 does have a half life of 3.05 minutes as show here. http://science.howstuffworks.com/radon1.htm . The reason why this is significant in Granite is because of the simple fact there is no parent element in the halos. Only the Polonium 218 halo is present. This is interesting because it is found in granite all around the world. Granite also has to be solid in order for the polonium to leave these halos behind. Therefore since it is found all around the world it is obvious that when the granite was first created Polonium 218 was involved. This also points to the fact that the granite must have been fully solidified before 3 minutes were up in order for the halos to appear. This would seem to discredit the idea that granite cooled slowly and gradually over millions of years.
Now on to Transitional forms. I won't spend very much time going into depth on this. Most of you may know that as a creationist I don't believe in macro-evolution. I do believe in Micro-Evolution but I object to the term as I view it as just a euphamism that is used to get people to believe in Macro-Evolution. I believe that each basic Phyla of animal responds and adapts to the stresses and changes in the environment through natural selection. This causes variation to occur, and it even occurs with humans creating different what we call "races", but we are still of course all human. I believe that in any one particular environment each type of animal has an optimum species or sub-species rather, that it will change into, but thats as far as it goes. If a dog migrates up to the artic it will adapt to its environment and certain traits will become more dominant in its descendants through natural selection making the best fit to survive, survive. However it will get to its optimum capacity to adapt to that particular environment and will stop. Ask any breeder of animals, there are limitations on variation. Then if it goes to a warmer climate, it will continue to change to adapt to its optimum form in that environment. Because of this we find all sorts of fossils that appear slightly different from, lets say certain monkeys and aquatic life we see right now. This is not because they are transitioning to something completely different but are extinct variations of the same basic type of animal. When you are operating under evolutionary assumptions it is easy to exagerate these differences and invoke a NEW UNCESSARY ENTITY called Macro-evolution to explain away the obvious fact it is just the remains of an everday process that happens to all animals. Also consider penguins, if they went extinct and were discovered fossilized they might be considered a transition between fish and birds. Sea lions and walruses might be considered between land animals and aquatic. But they both exist now, and aren't going anywhere, God created them that way. The facts are that there should be millions of transitional forms all over the world, if evolution is true we should find transitional forms more than anything else. By the way the whole micro-evolution vs. variety argument also applies to the flood as I see that question was asked. Noah would only have had to bring one dog on the ark or maybe a few varieties to keep up a healthy gene pool. Once the dog exited the ark, its descendants through natural selection and adaptation would regenerate all of the different sub-species. Also if you will read the resources that I posted on the flood blog you will find that the best theories on the mechanisms of the flood includes there only being one continent before the flood, the bible doesn't declare it either way. The question of animals in australia is irrelevant. What you are doing is declaring that according to a book you don't believe in or have probably never read, before the catastrophe happened in must have been identicle to the world now. So look at the world now and use that as a model for how the flood happened and Noah got the animals from all the continents that we see now.
Finally I wanted to address the objection that someone said about Neanderthal children looking different and how that proves that Neanderthals were not just people who lived to extremely old ages.
Infant Child Adolecent Adult Elderly
Infant Child Adolecent Adult Elderly
Look at the above comparison chart, the top is human beings now, the bottom is "neanderthals". In the bottom chart Infants stay at the level of infants longer. Because of this while they are in that stage of development they are still eating drinking and growing and gaining in mass. This would cause them to look quite a bit different from human infants now. In fact Dr. Jack Cuozzo predicted this and the Neanderthal children and adolescents fit into his prediction. You can read about this here
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/engis.html
and here
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/centech.html
Finally I had one last question that I wanted to ask you all, because I do think its relavent and I always like to ask it. What do you think about Jesus Christ?