Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Don't Like#5

[419Films]

Brilliant, well-spoken woman. I would love it if more girls aspired to be like her. Smart women are sexy as hell. :-)

[mikefromwa]

Religion is formalized insanity.

[camilocuesta]

She is smarter than Jesus

[KaslarProductions]

This woman is my hero

[angelcollector22]

Lady, well, both my mother and my father, they are both microbiologists...Dad also pastored a church for 25 years..Both my parents are now retired.

Not all scientists hold to the primordial ooze nonsense

[afroschlan]

@angelcollector22 Primordial ooze nonsense? Biased much?

[angelcollector22]

@afroschlan

Yes I am biased. It really doesn't make sense that all there is came from ooze from the ground. But, if thats what you believe more power to ya.

[afroschlan]

@angelcollector22 Your blunt side belief that you harbor some magical knowledge is astounding to me. Your statements contain nothing more than cocky expression of self-proclaimed victory by default. Knowledge obtained my man is rarely so easy. Perhaps you might want to share your amazing knowledge with the rest of us, peasants? What exactly is this primordial ooze nonsense?

[alexwars2]

@angelcollector22 You propose a theory of abiogenesis. Please elaborate. We can review the Ooze theory, and decide whether it's correct.

[mikefromwa]

@angelcollector22: "Yes I am biased."

TRANSLATION: "Yes I am a moron, because I believe in a magical, invisible, telepathic sky-daddy who created the entire universe in a few days."

[fishmanMarch61]

@mikefromwa

I like "skydaddy", the term.  Ha! Don't forget he also needed a day to rest.

[mikefromwa]

@fishmanMarch61: "Don't forget he also needed a day to rest."

Maybe if he hadn't taken a day off he would have had time to finish the world. :) lol

[skydome29]

@angelcollector22 no that's what you believe that other people believe, not the same thing.

[joe80dmanizanerd]

@angelcollector22 Then your father was just like the woman in the vid explains, a scientists who entered science - without knowing what it is. Science isn't simply developing technology or working with micro organisms, science is a philosophy that explains how we get our knowledge and what knowledge is.

[freakystyley4000]

Barbara Forrest is my Anti-Christ 'Mother Theresa'. (Tracie from the Atheist Experience will just have to settle for second place (which is 'Satanic Mary Magdeline')

Fuck Christ. Fuck Buddha. Fuck Mohammad. (these fellow homosapiens could have once existed).

On the other hand, none are divine and none answer to a Celestial Sky Daddy.

(fuck him by the way - even though he doesn't exist).

[Shavarnarak]

Muslim Children? Buddhist Children? Richard Dawkins is rolling around in his... bed? I mean he's thankfully still alive!

Heh, seriously though, science class is for science, not for mythology. Why can't the religious people just be happy having their sunday schools, and stay out of the REAL schools?

Ah yeah.. because they want to convert everyone... Well that's a losing battle anyway. Even the US only shows belief declining.

[sgpquek]

the politics of religion are aware that evolution when taught in school will be threatened and eroding the perpetuation of religion.

[TheStringtheorysucks]

Excellent vid! I grew up in a fundie home - every faith-healer,bible-thumping charlatan that breezed through town , I was forced to attend. They are just preying off the gullible and getting rich in the process. I never saw a "miracle" - only people caught up in the emotionalism of tent revivals. The preachers would also tell tales about great miracles god was doing, always conveniently in distant places like Africa. Eventually the only thing they did was to turn me into an atheist.

[ZooTycoon2Boy]

@TheStringtheorysucks actually yes! They prey oon the young... They know that if they dont do that science(the language of truth!) will conquer the world, i dream for a world were atheist means not evolution follower. Same happened to me, they just made me an atheist, every good thing that happens to them is thanks to god, but if something bad happens... wel bad luck...

[13thLegio]

I heard Kent Hovind being asked on a call in show the question; "What practical applications has ID research turned up?" Talk about a deer being caught in the headlights. Exposed the BS for what it is.

[robotchrist]

She is NOT criticizing religion. Religion gives billions of people a meaning for life and hope for the future. She is criticizing those people who try to confuse religion with science. Scientific facts do not come bundled with meanings. They're simply neutral facts about the natural world. If a creationist assumes that the theory of evolution through natural selection is atheistic then they are ascribing a meaning that it doesn't have. Many people can accept evolution and hold onto their faith.

[Acrimonator]

I'd like to understand how waiting for rapture or end of the world can make a meaningful and socialy useful life... That's completely egoist in regard of other people...

[robotchrist]

So, it's impossible for a religious person to live a meaningful life and contribute to society?? Are you saying that religion does NOT provide hope and solace to people regardless of race, culture, and economic background?? Dude, your comment simply makes no sense to me. Facts about the world must be true. Meaning, and I mean the type of personal meaning that gets us through the day and gets us over difficulties and tragedies in our lives, doesn't have to be true. It just has to work.

[Acrimonator]

I meant that if they act for fear/reward after death and not naturally, it's egoist, even if contributing in a positive way to society, wich isn't often the case.

Apparently you admit to need a "psychological crutch" in saying "it doesn't have to be true. It just has to work". How can it work if not true, except by self deluding ?

BTW it's not constructive to wait for death to have a better life.

"Facts about the world must be true", then "it doesn't have to be true", sounds hollow to me...

[MohawkMangopit]

Religion gives billions of people false meaning for life. It capitalizes on our innate fear of death. It props up delusions that alternately assuage and intensify that fear - heaven or hell? Opportunism masked with piety.

I don't know about death, I suspect nothingness ensues, but I am convinced of is that no religion ever conceived knows either.

The five stages of dying put forth by Kubler-Ross begins with denial.

Religion mires people in denial. I, personally, have chosen to move on.

[johnthekeane]

A huge kiss for Barbara Forrest...may her DNA survive and multiply!

[latkind3]

This Woman better be our next President!!!!!!!

[frankstanford]

this woman rocks. she not only knows her stuff, but her method of displaying it and explaining it, and the issue at hand, is as effective as it could possibly be.

[dirtybitbucket]

At least these videos are honest enough to identify Ms. Forrest for what she is: a philosopher, not a scientist. Faced with two opposing schools of (alleged) science, she has swallowed the party line that evolution is real science, while ID is religion masquerading as science. In fact it is the other way around.

Also, ID does not proclaim the God of the Bible as the designer, only that there is empirical evidence for design. The designer could be God, the Inuit legend, extraterrestrials, etc.

[LordQuixote]

Point me towards your empirical evidence for ID, otherwise you're a liar.

[katvilani]

If life shows evidence of design and evolution isnt true. Then the designer must be a god, it cant be extraterrestrials because who designed them. ID is religious, if you watch Thunderfoots video why do people laugh at creationists part 30; youll see what Im talking about. Party line! Youre comparing scientists who constantly search for better theories when the old ones dont cut it with dogmatic religionists. I think your confusing science with the word of god which is unchanging.

[Einsteinian99]

Barbara is do dead on! Religion is such a farce that only simpletons subscribe to. Weak minded people who need a crutch to make it through each day!

[Kattarina98]

Sometimes I tend to feel smug about the way science is taught in European schools. But the American experience shows that you can take nothing for granted.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Talk about intellectual dishonesty ! Perhaps someone who has studied evolution as much as she has might not think it has any atheistic implications. But to the unlearned outside observer, evolution is clearly a secular attempt to explain life on Earth. While creationism is clearly a relgious attempt to explain the same thing. And anyone who can't concede to at least these two opposing appearances is not intellectually honest.

[Aturayd]

So because through secular things like, empirical observation, it has atheistic implications it is therefore wrong. We cant step on the toes of religion now can we. You are a spineless person who is angry there is no middle ground for you to sit on.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

In my studies, I have encountered two kinds of evolutionists. Those such as Barbara Forrest who say evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. But rather only how species adapt & change with their environment. But then there are others who do claim it explains how life began completely & totally apart from God such as Neil deGrasse Tyson. And so whether you want to admit it or not, there definitely are atheistic implications. Hope that doesn't make you angry.

[Aturayd]

Evolution doesnt explain how live begins.. that would be abiogenesis. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin. Thanks for playing though.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

How odd then that Darwin would name his thesis the "Origin of Species" ?

[Aturayd]

Yes thats right.. the origin of species, ie speciation, not the origin of life.

[musekiteer]

1. The TofE attempts to explain the fact of biological evolution. Abiogenesis deals with how chemicals came to be self-replicating assemblages.

I have yet to encounter an evolutionist, or any respectable scientist who does not know the difference between these. Since Tyson is an astrophysicist, he deals with events that long pre-dated abiogenesis and biological evolution.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Fair enough.

I already knew the difference between abiogenesis & evolution.

Have you ever compared Neil Tyson to Hugh Ross ? They're both astrophysicists. They both agree the universe is 14.5 billion years old. And yet one is an atheist. And the other a creationist.

[musekiteer]

Bizarre mistake of mine!

No, I haven't compared them. Is Ross a deistic (set it up and leave) creationist like Paul Davies, or a godiditall OE creationist?

In essence, the difference is what I meant by "non-necessary atheistic" implications.

Forrest is saying that creationists regard the TofE as having atheistic implications. It ain't necessarily so, but biblical literalists *fear* the TofE because it refutes the metaphysics in Genesis. That's the problem with dogmatic insistence.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I don't know for sure.

I think he would probably say he's more OEC than TE. Although I'm still not sure what the differences (if any) between the two are myself.

But I would suggest you check him out for yourself.

His ministry is called "Reasons To Believe".

Let me know what you think.

[musekiteer]

I checked. Ross is OEC (something called "progressive creationism"), anti-evolution, and anti-abiogenesis. I'm not sure what TE is either. You don't want to know my opinion of creationism. I do find it amusing - and telling - that there are so many varieties of creationism. That would be akin to having *modern* Lamarckians rambling about inheritance of acquired characteristics.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

TE is theistic-evolution. And if you think YEC is absurd, I agree ! Like I said (until today) I wasn't sure what the differences (if any) were between OEC & TE. But they are basically three fold. TE holds to shared ancestry of DNA, macro-evolution, and no biblical flood (not even local). While OEC pretty much holds to everything else TE does except those three things. And so I am OEC too. But I don't deny abiogenesis or evolution as you say Ross does.

[musekiteer]

It sounds as though TE is essentially equivalent to deism - a creator that set it up and let it run. That fits with the scientific evidence, at least. It's a much more tenable position and, in not denying evidence, belief would be less easily assaulted than YEC or OEC.

Thanks for the information, JA.

[LanceDirk]

Well, the evidence suggests that in fact there was a local flood, nothing spectacular, just as a result of the end of the last ice age. That doesn't exclude other normal floods either.

TE sounds like the correct application of the kalaam cosmological argument. Normally that argument seems to be applied by O and YECs, based on your definition of them, neither of which it supports.

[musekiteer]

2. Yes, there are non-necessary atheistic implications in the alternative explanations offered by science. That's why the vast majority of eminent scientists, particularly eminent biological scientists are atheists.

Deism is compatible with both abiogenesis and biological evolution, though not necessarily with the Big Bang. That depends on whether or not the scientist terminates the regress at the singularity, or insists that the universe is contingent.

[musekiteer]

Aesthetic implications?! Do you even *know* what that word means?

Biological evolution is an observable *fact*. The ToE (modern synthesis) is an attempt to explain the observable facts.

Bronze Age men knew *nothing* of science, or even that evolution had occurred, so they concocted logically flawed creation myths. Science aims at understanding, religion invents pseudo-explanations. If you cannot see that, then you are intellectually dishonest.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I can see your point.

But you can't see mine ?

Who's being intellectually dishonest ?

[musekiteer]

Do you know what the word "aesthetic" means?

I have "seen" your generic point of view ad nauseam. I've considered it and rejected it on the grounds that indoctrinated faith in myths is valueless. Creationists regurgiquote lies and fallacies of logic. Even if the current TofE were utterly incorrect (it isn't) that would not "prove" your mythical God. It's an argument from ignorance to think it would.

You can fling ad hominems at me, they are fallacious too.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I dismiss neither abiogenesis nor evolution as valid sciences. And you know not what theology I hold to. All I am saying is to someone who has studied evolution as much as Barbara Forrest has might not think it has atheistic implications. But to the unlearned observer, it clearly is a secular attempt to explain life on Earth. While creationism is clearly a relgious one to explain the same thing. And anyone who can't concede to at least these two opposing appearances is not intellectually honest.

[musekiteer]

No, I do not know your theology, JAMF. Your handle is suggestive, though.

Ah, I have just seen the mistake that I made when very tired last night. I misread "atheistic" as "aesthetic". That's a first! No wonder your comment made no sense. Sorry!

Forrest and scientists would all tell you that *science is secular*. Science is necessarily secular in so far as it can *only* examine the physical. Did she say anything *different* than this?

Evolution is a phenomenon, the TofE is science.

[nag73]

If there are any American biology teachers reading this, I'm standing up and saluting you here in the U.K. Keep fighting the good fight.

[xinkor]

what's the creation science curriculum? Flintstones cartoons and the book of genesis?

[yellowdart137]

...kent hovid videos... shutters.

[bonangusacdc]

Long live Barbara. Listen up Creationist morons.

[nag73]

Yeah, she's my new hero.

[EarlFaulk]

I havent seen thechessstick post his usual accusation that this woman hates christians...yet, he did on all other four parts.

[Devinw9]

i hate labeling children as religious even though they don't have the concept of free thought...... child abuse

[chopin65]

I agree that it is a question of epistemology. However, her definition of epistemology is flawed. She is stating that creationism is working without an epistemology. That is incorrect by definition epistemology is not evident on method of material evidence, but of cognitive approach. A religious person works from a system of knowledge created in the mind as opposed to observed in nature. It is a small but vital point. Plus she is attacking philosophers when she has no logical reason to do so.

[OpenDiscussion]

censorship test

[OpenDiscussion]

censorship test result: PASS

[tattypatty]

Why do you keep posting this? The fact that someone thinks that not believing in a 2000 year-old book of fables ( in a very particular way) will result in ETERNAL HELLFIRE AND DAMNATION is not interested in an open discussion.

[liber8me]

doesnt intelligent design discrimminate against polytheism?

[chiefweezo]

it does but it also discrimigates against atheism. really it discrimigates against anyone that has any education over 8th grade.

[zaxineohp]

Some questions prompted by this series of videos.

Speaking of epistomology, how do scientists know that random processes can account for the complexity and diversity observed in the living world?

Can they show others how they got this knowledge? Have they shown others how they got this knowledge?

Darwin and Dawkins, among others, ostensibly have refuted the design argument. Yet counter arguments are not allowed by virtue of the definition of science. What kind of science is this?

[LTDcunuk]

zaxin

" how do scientists know that random processes can account for the complexity and diversity observed in the living world?"

It isn't random, it is by natural selection

"Can they show others how they got this knowledge? Have they shown others how they got this knowledge?"

Yes they do and have.  It's called the peer review process

[LTDcunuk]

Darwin and Dawkins...have refuted the design argument. Yet counter arguments are not allowed by virtue of the definition of science. What kind of science is this?"

Science can neither prove or disprove something that, by definition, is not natural. That is the kind of science this is.

[zaxineohp]

Can science tell whether or not an intelligent agent has acted? I assume that the answer is yes, since science is looking for intellgent signals from outer space.

So in principle there is methodlogy that can distinguish between what is a natural and what is intelligent. But we are not allowed to apply this methodology to living things?

Dawkins has even admitted that God is scientific. He assumes that a universe with a God would be different from a universe without a God.

[LTDcunuk]

zaxin, by 'intelligent agent', I would have assumed you meant a 'GOD' of one description or another, not a different, mortal, form of life. I guess I was wrong. Yes, I think scientists are still searching for signs of other intelligent, naturally occuring, life forms. Please, by all means, apply these scientific meathodologies to this search. And as for your Dawkins quote, You'd have to ask him that yourself. I would think it has been quote mined, myself

[zaxineohp]

You have not addressed the main point of my post.

You agree that there is a methodology for distinguishing natural causes from intellient causes. What prevents scientists from applying these methods to living things and not just signals from outer space?

[LTDcunuk]

They do. Example: A tree is found laying horizontal.

Natural cause: From the evidence, it is found that it died and eventually fell.

Intelligent cause: From the evidence, it is found there are chainsaw marks on the tree trunk. It was cut down by a human with a chainsaw.

Now, if you are actually looking for 'supernatural' causes instead of intelligent ones, this is out of the realm of science because science can only study things that are natural, not super-natural.

[zaxineohp]

I am looking for intelligent causes. The intelligent cause may or may not be supernatural. If the methodology of design detection is rigorous, then the nature of the cause should make no difference.

True -- scientists can only study things that are natural. For example, they can study the bacterial flagellum, and apply design detection methodology to detemine if the flagellum was designed.

True -- if the designer was supernatural, we can't study "it".

[zaxineohp]

To tell me that the peer review process has given scientists this knowledge is a non-answer. What specific knowledge was peer reviewed?

I have asked this question on at least 3 threads, and have yet to receive a specific answer. It's now at least 4 threads.

The only thing that I can conclude from this is that scientists have no answer yet. There is nothing wrong with admitting that science doesn't have an answer -- unless it involves the theory of evolution, perhaps.

[LTDcunuk]

zaxin, I am sorry, I was unaware you were not familiar with the end result of a scientific research, which ends with a peer review. I am not a scientist, but I will try to explain as well as I can.

Scientific research starts out with an hypithesis, which you could call a guess. Then, through research, you set out to either prove or disprove your hypothesis. You experiment, collect data and so on. If you prove your hypothesis correct, you submit your findings to a scientific journal...

[LTDcunuk]

then, when it is published, every other scientist in that particular field is able to review all your notes, data and experiments. They will then try to reproduce your experiments and see it they get the same results. If no faults or errors are found in your work, it is then considered 'new' knowledge and may be taught in schools

This is the Peer review process as I understand it

[LTDcunuk]

zaxin, The only thing you can conclude from recieving no answers is that no one has answered you.

If I scream 'can you hear me' to a crouded room, and no one answers, I cannot conclude that every one in the room is deaf. they may all think I am insane because I am yelling at them, so they just ignore me

Thank you for the intelligent conversation

[zaxineohp]

You have described the peer review process as I understand it.

So what do I conclude from the fact that you have not answered my question? Instead you explain the peer reveiw process.

You say you are not a scientist. Neither am I. If you don't know specifically how scientists know that evolution can account for the complexity observed in living things, please say so. I will not hold it against you.

[LTDcunuk]

Scientists know evolution occured and is still occuring because of many differnt fields of study. The fossil record (yes there are thousands of intermediary fossils), DNA, Geology.

If you really are seeking answers, I would suggest seek out these channels: Thunderf00t, potholer54, DonExodus2, cdk007. They are scientists and can explain these things much better than I can in 500 characters

[zaxineohp]

You mention the fossil record, DNA, geology. I see no rational basis for infering the mechanism of evolution from those evidences. Those evidences record only the results of the mechanism.

The demonstration of mechanism has to come from somewhere else.

Are those posters you listed on this thread? I'm having trouble finding them.

[LTDcunuk]

You aren't looking

The mechanisms for evolution are random genetic mutation and natural selection. Genes mutate randomly. In a hostile environment, the best adapted (mutated) for that environment will survive, and passes on their genetic code. They eventually die and we find fossilised bones as a record of their existance. It shows evolution from low to higher complex forms

We can trace the similarities or ALL life in the genetic code.

They are not posters here. Check out their channels

[zaxineohp]

Yes, the fossil record shows change over time. The younger fossils are more complex than the older fossils.

You repeat that the mechanisms of evolution are random genetic mutation and natural selection. This is no more than a hypothisis. What needs to be shown is that this mechanism can actually can build complex, coordinated biological structures.

All science knows for sure is that evolution can account for small changes.

[LTDcunuk]

'You repeat that the mechanisms of evolution are random genetic mutation and natural selection.'

Because it is the answer

You are wrong about it being no more than a hypothesis, but I will never be able to convince you. You have made your decision to stick to what ever beliefs you have, no matter what science has to say to the contrary. I have enjoyed our discussion, but until you approach this with an open mind, you will belive what you want and no amount of evidence will sway you

peace

[zaxineohp]

You are correct that you will not convince me with the evidence you have presented, since it does not come close to demonstrating the grand claim of evolution, only the minor claim.

Evolution should be able to be simulated on a computer. What would it mean if evolution could not be simulated on a computer? So far this seems to be the case. Evolutionary algorithms must be provided with a goal oriented intelligent selection routine for them to work. There is no such routine in nature.

[bigship52]

Satan Spawn demon

[pontolones]

thank the lord savior jeebus of latter day jews for this woman, and doing these interviews.

[feral2k]

She is certainly a well-informed person on these matters. Keep posting videos like these, hoffmanallison. I love 'em!

[Jovian84]

we should drive them againts each other. create an issue that gets them fighting each other internally, or makes them look stupid externally. they've entered bloody arena of politic, so lets play dirty and make a few more marters.

[chopin65]

What would that accomplish? What good would come of it? Could you explain "make a few more marters"? Thank you.

[RomeoCo]

Welcome to the New Dark Ages.

[Nuckpang]

Hey, that's deeply offensive!! I mean, the Dark Ages weren't NEARLY as bad as modern creationism! At least in the Dark Ages there were people who were TRYING to learn! Creationists look at the science and fact presented to them and do everything in their power to destroy it. Shame on you, sir, for insulting our fine medieval scientists! :P

[mihaicosmos]

always a pleasure to listen her!

[GenMata]

she is Clueless!

[MajinOtaku83]

Out of curiosity, what makes you say that?

[GenMata]

Because I know the truth and she is being Pc.

[estefez]

"I know the truth"

which "truth" do you "know?" The ancient hebrew 'god made man out of clay'? The inuit belief that 'animals are the dissevered fingers of a girl clinging to a boat'?

Your "truth" is one of countless mythologies. The only universal truth there can be is the one observed, tested, and proven objectively and scientifically.

[GenMata]

Science has never proven evilution.

Too much can't be explained and it certainly isn't universal truth. You relatives may have lived in trees but mine didnt. Every element of man can be found in clay.

[Qba86]

Great -I see you're an expert... See, I'm just an ignorant molecular biologist. In my ignorace, I was convinced that we have paleontological evidence (including many transition fossils), molecular evidence (sequence comparisons) and mathematical models (both on molecular and macroscopic level. But what do I know...

[Elcristoph]

"Too much can't be explained and it certainly isn't universal truth." - such as??, Id like to heard a few examples..

[Jakemmx]

There are some very small problems with evolution (that will be solved in time), but it is nearly as 'proven' at this point as the existance of antartica is. The problem is that creationism has absolutely no proof AT ALL. You are in no position to bash evolution on the stance of evidence.

[GenMata]

Nothing of evilution is proven..

So many holes in the theory.

[Jakemmx]

Just because you claim to blatantly deny thousands of extrordinarily well supported studies does not prove anything. You can probably find more evidence for evolution at this point than for meere existance of antartica....

Name even a single part of the creationist theory (from whatever time period you want) that is not, in essance, a gaping hole.

[tiber23]

Like one of these videos said, science is not into proving anything. So no evolution will not ever become a fact. Holes in the theory thats what is interesting to science we want to understand the gaps again in one of these videos. So do creationist always want God in doubt because playing on the equal field means God's existance is always in doubt.

[dancingnature]

you can easily watch short lived organisms evolve

so yeah, evolution is a fact

and yes that god-of-the-gaps argument is a bad one ..every time we find a natural explanation for something that some ignoramous has claimed can only happen thru a miracle ..God gets pushed into a smaller corner

[dancingnature]

what holes ?

get specific here about the holes in evolution either as a theory or as an observed fact

separate creation is a meaningless concept to biologists

multicellular eucaryotes (like yourself) are amalgams of several species mitochondria and chloroplasts in plants are eubacteria

google, plastid endosymbiosis

[falchion49]

So much evidence to support it.

[Elcristoph]

how so?

[warriorprince1010]

If creation is true then it has to be taught, whether or not it affects religious freedoms. Science has no time for evolutionism, science is happy with creation there are no problems we know of.

[Aaron518]

Nice to know that you agree that creation should only be taught if it's true.

I guess we are doing good then,since creation isn't being taught.

[MajinOtaku83]

It is always fascinating to read Intelligent Design/Creationists posts. Its often a case of appealing to the general population which has nothing to do with science...

Science isnt democracy, its about Proof

[dancingnature]

separate creation is a meaningless term

[yohei72]

"Science has no time for evolutionism, science is happy with creation..." OK, I figured it out. You're confused: "science" isn't the men in the funny robes reading Bibles from pulpits, it's the people in long white coats who work in laboratories. Clear now?

[Elcristoph]

"If creation is true then it has to be taught, whether or not it affects religious freedoms." - maybe, problem is creation science isnt valid. Ive seen most if not all the arguments and the "Science" doesnt stand up...

[Jakemmx]

No problems? Saying that some specfic diety, out of millions, created everything only has really only two holes .... there is absolutely no evidence for the creator, and there is no evidence that the creator actually did anything. Science is not happy with creationism, just like they are not happy with the belief that electricity is Zeus throwing bolts at them.

[kadkins3663]

YESSSSS.... More of this. I love this woman.

[warriorprince1010]

Science supports creation, atheism/evolutionism has no basis in science.

[WizardJim]

suuuuure it does, go back to sleep.

[kadkins3663]

No, what he needs to do is take his medication.

[RuinedSaint]

"Science supports creation..."

Please provide the testable, confirmable scientific evidence that must exist for this statement to be true.

[sifakaboy]

As a biologist, I can tell you that at a top ten school in the U.S. **** evolution is the frame work(that is the "base") in which all topics in biology/life sciences are viewed*** to say there is "no basis" for evolution in science is the same as suggesting no evidence for earth being round just cause you don't see the curve

[Elcristoph]

"suggesting no evidence for earth being round just cause you don't see the curve" - well said...:)

[BaxtersBuddy]

Let me guess, your preacher told you that, didn't he?

[yohei72]

I find it fascinating when someone says "science supports X", where X is something that almost no scientists believe and has no scientific research in its support published. Which "science" can this person be talking about?