Ron, all you have to do is Google, “iraqi civilian death toll” and you can do your own homework instead in slandering The Lang Report ….OK?

Mike Lang
Publisher

Evolution is not random, evolution does not need to be witnessed first hand to be tested (in the same way police forces do not need to see an actual murder to pin a conviction). Evolution is testable definable, FALSIFIABLE and is science.

Creationism is made up bullshit that cannot be FALSIFIED and therefore is not fit for time-wasting discussion. Not only is creationism falsifiable it has been FALSIFIED many times, not least of which being the many different cross-checked and correlating methods which pin the age of the earth at WELL OVER 6000 years.

Evolution also has nothing to do with the big bang, so stop mentioning them in the same breath. It has nothing to do with the LHC. The big bang and the evolution of life on our planet are seperated by some 8 billion years.

Please, just all of you creationists fuck off back under your rock and sit there, not evolving and burying your pinheaeds in the sand because you don’t want your petty, paltry belief system torn down in front of you.

Ben

The second major issue has been covered in other comments. It has been noted, for example, that Lang’s approach to evolution and creation shows that he is obviously committed to belief in evolution.

One comment poster suggested that another had no graduate or post-graduate training – “As a moron, I am assuming that you have no graduate or post graduate education. My suggestion is to go read the opinion of Roe v. Wade.”

One of the reasons why, to quote one book title, evolution has been called “a theory in crisis”, is because very highly qualified scientists, in every field of science (including those trained in “evolutionary biology”) have found that the scientific evidence is stacked AGAINST evolution. The more we learn, the more we find that evolution lacks scientific credibility. However, it is an essential plank in the floor to make atheism respectable. (And Hitler may have been “on the books” as a Roman CAtholic, but his personal commitment to evolution drove much of his thinking, and led to the Holocaust as well as many other evils. But he was elected by a small margin to deliver change, and he did succeed in bringing economic prosperity to Germany.)

Intelligent Design is the meeting place of both Christians (who may be creationsists as well) and atheists who find evolution to be discredited by the facts but do not take that step of religious belief.

Young earth creationists include many of the greatest scientists of the past 1,000 years (http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs.htm). They find that there is no conflict between the established facts of science, shorn of various theories, and a Biblical concept of creation. And it is interesting that Russell Humphries used a young earth creation model of the solar system to account for measured planetary magnetic fields. From this he made predictions about Neptune and Uranus, which were very different from what anyone else predicted, but were totally proved by Voyager 2. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

But to return to the politics. If we want to train the best possible scientists, we must never shield them from the kind of training which they would get from being allowed to compare both evolution and creation in the science lesson. While both are based on a belief system, what is relevant to the science class is consideration of the facts of science and discussion of these facts. The way that various bodies scream against allowing any challenge to evolution could be seen as suggesting that they know that the facts of science are stacked against evolution, and that the only way to preserve evolution from challenge is to stifle scientific debate.

Ussher (SP?) was the one who calculated the world to be 6000 years old. In the 1600s.

I would rather have an Amish VP, as they won’t tell me I am going to Hell for not believing that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed.

First of all, great job to everyone on here! I’m really proud of how y’all have all kept pretty clean mouths and heads. Most of the time emotionalism really takes over when issues like these are discussed.

Randy, you posed the question if ‘a thousand years is as a day’ why can’t the six days of creation be considered 6,000 years instead of a literal week. If you look at the context of that phrase it goes on to say ‘and a day is as a thousand years.’ So it just cancels that out. What this phrase really means is that God is outside of time, because he created time. It also was not meant to be a critique on the six days of Creation. Another question about the 24-hour six day creation is the meaning of the Hebrew Yom. Yom can mean a 24-hour day, the portion of daylight in a day, a certain time in hisory or an uncertain amount of time. However, every time the words first, second, third (etc.) and evening, or morning, are used with the word ‘yom’ it always means a regular 24-hour day (as is done in Genesis 1). So if these days are literal, than God couldn’t have created things over millions of years (not because He doesn’t have that power but because He said that he didn’t).
The Random House Dictionary defines religion as ‘A set of beliefs concerning the nature, cause, and purpose of this universe.’ I believe that this describes evolution to a ‘T’. I should also point out that there is a huge difference between adaptation and variation vs. evolution. Creatioinists accept A&V; it’s proven by observational science. We can observe dogs changing within their created kind i.e. the dog family, and we can observe bacteria adapting to their environments, but this is not evolution in the molecules-to-man sense. There is not a single example of an adaptation adding new information to the genome which is what would be needed to change fish into tetrapods. All observable ‘proofs’ of evolution fall under this category. Have you ever noticed that both evolutionist and creationists agree on the laws of chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc.? It’s only when we begin talking about origins that there is controversy, and that’s because none of us can observe what has happened in the past. Both evolutionists and creationists can interpret the fossil record in a way that fits their theories because they have pre-committments to those theories. There’s no way to prove 100% who is really right because no one was there to observe what really happened.
I believe in Creationism, and the Bible; however I support the principle of religious freedom which our Founding Fathers set forth: the right to believe in any religion without persecution from the State or National government. I believe that both Creationism and Evolution should be taught in schools; teachers should show the facts and the theories to the children and let them examine it for themselves. I really think that this would re-birth a love for learning if children knew that these theories were still open to discussion. I am still a student and therefore can quite capable of making this judgment. God Bless all of you (even those of you who don’t believe in Him!)

Laura

Also, I know as much about evolution as any layman…I’ve been a science nut all my life. But, I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus. And, yes, though I do not take all the bible teachingss and scriptures, literally, I do believe they were written by people who truly experienced Jesus’and God’s works..and wrote about them.. and what a profound impact it must have had on them, and to those who read their writings.

Now having said this, don’t you think it’s conceivable that God (for whom, ..” a thousand years is but a day”..which is 6,000 years in God’s time..quite a long time for Him to work on one project), could have used “evolution”, and the millions of years in between, to “create” man? A litttle “push” here, a little “push” there and wa la… Adam. So, unlike Carl Sagan (a man I admired and still do) and many other “scientists” like him (maybe like you?), who seem to think that science and evolution have disproved the existence of God’s work…. my beliefs are far from their self-centered thought processes.

I don’t have much use for our mainstream religions. They are supposed to be a way to help guide us, not indoctrinate us, as many of them have. But there are many good men in the “church” who are helping people get started in saving their souls. I tend to read the bible and interpret it myself. And with God’s help, hopefully experience, what i am seeking some day..sounds like some of you doing the same…God Bless!