Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed... A movie review

[Cabal]

Testable?

None. There is no way to find out how the process began IMPO. It is very possible that evolutionists (or IDers, either way) can explain how it happened in terms of a physical process. What evolution can't explain is how via natural selection, enough time and random chance. Whatever caused those things to happen are the answer. I don't believe that cause can be attributed to nothing. It's not unlikely, it's impossible.

But ot answer you question directly, I don't believe that anyone, including IDers, can answer that question.

That's cool, thanks. Wasn't sure if you were aware if evolution technically doesn't cover the origin of life, just the thereafter. And yeah, people have been known to jump the gun a bit when it comes to that particular aspect of it.

By the way, are you aware of the Miller-Urey experiment?

 

[Frisbee]

Absolutely! But it has since been pretty much abondoned in exchange for more vialble opitions. If you want a pretty good overview of the Miller-Urey experiment, it's limitations and some possible alternatives go to...

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/index.html

As you can see it if from the Duke University Chemistry Department, but it has a surpringly easy to understand breakdown of otherwise pretty complex matters. One thing that kind of jumps out at you is that it is obvious that we don't have any real answers as of yet, but I like the panspermia theory myself. You asked earlier how I thought God did it... well I can imagine that God set things into motion in perfection during creation. All the right elements in the right places, working perfectly according to His plan. One way around the mathematical impossibility of random chance and lotsa time is when things happen that would not just explain how, but how exactly. I think anybody but an insanely closed minded atheist could agree that there are limits to how much "chance" could be considered a rational and reasonable explanation.

Anyhow, enjoy the webiste!

 

[Cabal]

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/index.html

Thanks for the link!

You asked earlier how I thought God did it... well I can imagine that God set things into motion in perfection during creation. All the right elements in the right places, working perfectly according to His plan. One way around the mathematical impossibility of random chance and lotsa time is when things happen that would not just explain how, but how exactly. I think anybody but an insanely closed minded atheist could agree that there are limits to how much "chance" could be considered a rational and reasonable explanation.

That's kinda how I see God's starting role in Creation. I liken it to a chemist mixing to chemicals together, which react and form a product. Saying God didn't create it is like saying the chemicals would have reacted without anyone there to mix them together. However, despite the fact that the reaction process guides the reactants into their product form, doesn't detract from the fact that the chemist initiated the reaction, and thus, the product's creation.

Indeed, the analogy can be extended again for God, as He is the author of ALL. Not only did he create some mechanism like natural selection to create us, but he invented the process of natural selection too, so more glory to him!

One word on the probabilities: what sort of events would you say are probabilistically unlikely (but for the intervention of a intelligent designer), except to an atheist? Bear in mind a lot can happen in 13 billion years...

 

[Frisbee]

Here's my favorite for folks who like to say that the earth has all the elements necessary for life ot have begun here...

Did you know that the heavy elements that pretty much make up our planet are the result of a secondary process?

Much of the basic chemistry of terrestrial life such as magnesium, sodium, iron, etc. owes its presence to nuclear processing inside earlier generations of stars, whose products were then available to make the Sun and its planets.

You have got to read this!!! --->>> http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/kirshner.html

Or in other words all this stuff that atheist neo-Darwinsts like to point to to explain how life randomly sprung into life on earth, are the result of at least 2 (more likely 3 or 4) life cycles of stars that formed, contracted, exploded, contracted, exploded and... well you get the point. The odds of all the perfect ingredients on a planet at the perfect distance form it's star, in a universe with a perfectly tuned environment (scientific laws of nature) is so absurd to attribute to random chance, that it is mathematically impossible. Not unlikely, impossible.

For God to set into motion the chain of events that had to occur to bring us to just be a planet with the right material, is like throwing a dart at a dartboard on the other end of a distant galaxy and not just getting a bullseye, but sticking the next (3 or 4) darts in it's tail as well. Like I said, it's not improbable, it's implossible. Unless of course it was done intentionally by a Being powerful enough and intelligent enough to do it. Chance is completely off the table at this point.

The question to ID proponents is much less the ability to explain how, but the study of how itself. The fact that it is beyond any reasonable doubt something that the forces that neo-Darwinist evoltuionists can't explain by chance and time leaves us with one sane and rational alternative... Intelligent Design and intervention on a scale of intelligence and power that renders human beings an atom compared to a billion, trillion, billion, trillion Mount Everests in terms of scale. Where most creationists see this as reducing who and what God is, I see it as literally magnifying Him.

 

[Markus6]

Or in other words all this stuff that atheist neo-Darwinsts like to point to to explain how life randomly sprung into lif eon earth, are the result of at least 2 (more likely 3 or 4) life cycles of stars that formed, contracted, exploded, contracted, exploded and... well you get the point. The odds of all the perfect ingredients on a planet at the perfect distance form it's star, in a universe with a perfectly tuned environment (scientific laws of nature) is so absurd to attribute to random chance, that it is mathematically impossible. Not unlikely, impossible.

I jump on people when they use statistics to show there must be life on other planets too so I figured I should be consistent. What are the odds? How did you calculate them? What is the cut off for mathematically impossible?

For God to set into motion the chain of events that had to occur to bring us to just be a planet with the right material, is like throwing a dart at a dartboard on the other end of a distant galaxy and not just getting a bullseye, but sticking the next (3 or 4) darts in it's tail as well. Like I said, it's not improbable, it's implossible.

Wait. Are you saying God can't do it? I've heards he's pretty good at darts.

The question to ID proponents is much less the ability to explain how, but the study of how itself. The fact that it is beyond any reasonable doubt something that the forces that neo-Darwinist evoltuionists can't explain by chance and time leaves us with one sane and rational alternative... Intelligent Design and intervention on a scale of intelligence and power that renders human beings an atom compared to a billion, trillion, billion, trillion Mount Everests in terms of scale. Where most creationists see this as reducing who and what God is, I see it as literally magnifying Him.

'Neo-Darwinism' and 'evolutionism' has nothing to do with planetary formation. Even less than is has to do with abiogenesis.

 

[Frisbee]

LOL I had to correct my statement Marcus, God can do it.

I added the following to earlier statement...

Unless of course it was done intentionally by a Being powerful enough and intelligent enough to do it. Chance is completely off the table at this point.

It depends on how powerful an omnipotent Creator actually is I then! Anyhow, sorry for the confusion, I just was thinking faster than I was typing and my hands didn't catch up I suppose!

As for the realm of mathematical impossiblity...

They actually have a threshold for that. Of course it it is an imaginary line in the sand, but the number is something like 10 to 23rd power. 1 in 10 to the 23rd power is considered the far edge of mathematical possiblity. I don't know how they arrive at the figures, but I've heard that the odds of neo-Darwinian evolution and all the pieces of the puzzle for it to work (even if they did have a clue of how) would be like 10 to the 123rd power. So far beyond absurd that any rational human being would never even begin to consider it.

My experience is that atheists just shrug their shoulders and say "Well, it happened, so there you have it!". To beleive that life formed anywhere else, well... I guess if you bought once at those odds, why not twice or another million times. What the difference at that point?

 

[mont974x4]

I'll wait for it to come out on DVD and just buy it. I don't go to the theater if I can help it. LOL

And as a YEC, I look forward to watching it. If I understand Stein's comments correctly he is simply trying to expose the hypocrisy of those claiming tolerance and intelectual integrity while at the same time shutting out a very valid option that should be welcomed to the debate.

I have also read reviews that said it was very well made.

 

[Frisbee]

The only thing that a YEC might not like is that when folks fling insults at YECs, and believe me they do, Stein doesn't defend them. It is not about a theory, but as you pointed out it is about academic freedom and the intolerance of anyone who isn't a fellow neo-Darwinist.

 

[mont974x4]

The only thing that a YEC might not like is that when folks fling insults at YECs, and believe me they do, Stein doesn't defend them. It is not about a theory, but as you pointed out it is about academic freedom and the intolerance of anyone who isn't a fellow neo-Darwinist.

LOL I'm used to the insults..no biggie.

 

[Frisbee]

It's not an insult. You wont find too many IDers who like to insult YECs, and in the movie the "insults" are flung at anyone who isn't an atheist AND an evolutionist.

 

[GenemZ]

Evolution has not been emprically or otherwise proven.

There is a process of transformation that can be empirically proven within a specie. Darwin started out with witnessing such a situation with the bird beaks.


On the other hand? Evolution, as TOE prescribes it to us? Is the problem. It takes it to a level that can not be proven empirically. Its speculation.

I will say this.. They have my sympathy. To an extent. For, if I never learned what the Bible teaches in the original languages? I would be at least conflicted... Or, possibly, broken away completely if I had a love for biology.

What the other problem is? A certain creation teaching exposed by certain Bible Scholars, has been eXpelled by many in the fundamentalist community.

They often times treat the GAP theory with the same type of disdain that TOE's have have for YEC thinking. Same disdain as shown in the movie. I do find that a strange type of irony. If it were not such a tragedy, I would have chuckled. But, they do not see that they get back the same judgement as they do judge.

The GAP theory resolves several normally unresolvable debate issues. One, is with the ancient ages and fossil data. Why they existed as independent creations. It even explains why there was no need for transitionals (missing links). And, most important. It reveals that God's Word contained information about past creations long before fossils were understood.

I have read through several books by Evolutionists in the past. They all mocked Young Earth Creationism.

One book (I wished I kept the name, and purchased) I read had something to say that caught my attention. It was a work by an evolutionists who was very much against young earth creationism.

The data scientists have is often times used to make a mockery of this being a young earth. Yet? One comment this professor made? She stated that its a shame that too much of Christianity ignores the GAP theory. Because she said that its the only Bible teaching she witnessed to, that holds merit when lined up with the data.

Of course, The YEC's who eXpell this theory, always scream that the GAP theory was created as a quick response to Darwinism. Some even wrongfully claim, it endorses TOE.

If the truth be known? The teaching was around long before Darwin was born. Why? Because many earlier scholars who knew the original languages in their studies saw what was being implied. Even Origen saw that this present world is a replacement of a prior creation. When was that? Centuries long before Darwin had gills.

I do not know why this professor volunteered such an opinion. Interestingly. She never took a Biblical position, nor appeared to be a believer. Yet, she said that the only Biblical teaching she saw with merit was the GAP theory. She even stated it was a pity that it was ignored by so many fundamentalists. I still wonder why she said that...





In Christ, GeneZ



.

 

[Frisbee]

I respect everyone's point of view except those who don't respect the truth. Most people are seriously interested in the truth, but sometimes it takes a while for others to accept that you aren't going to use and abuse them if they are open and honest to you.

The fastest way to ruin your witness in this environment is to give people who you disagree with a reason to mistrust you. Sometimes the right thing to do is to throw the debate if the cost of winning is mistreating another person and hurting their feelings. There's a balance between that and not being a doormat.

Bottom line is that if you are guided by a principled dedication to finding the truth, even people who might otherwise disagree with, will respect the fact that you treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and in the end have simple come to a different conclusion than they have. In that case I propose that your behavior as a loving witness for Jesus Christ will have a more profound impact on the unbeliever in particular, than embarrassing that person because they don't or can't debate as well s you can.

Evolutionists and Creationists at the far end of both sides of this debate have one thing in common... their belief system is contingent upon being right about creation. You must always remember that if this is the case then beating them in a debate is pointless. If you want to witness to that particular type of individual you have to first win their hearts and their trust, then perhaps they will listen to what you have to say.

 

[GenemZ]

I respect everyone's point of view except those who don't respect the truth. Most people are seriously interested in the truth, but sometimes it takes a while for others to accept that you aren't going to use and abuse them if they are open and honest to you.

The fastest way to ruin your witness in this environment is to give people who you disagree with a reason to mistrust you. Sometimes the right thing to do is to throw the debate if the cost of winning is mistreating another person and hurting their feelings. There's a balance between that and not being a doormat.

Bottom line is that if you are guided by a principled dedication to finding the truth, even people who might otherwise disagree with, will respect the fact that you treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and in the end have simple come to a different conclusion than they have. In that case I propose that your behavior as a loving witness for Jesus Christ will have a more profound impact on the unbeliever in particular, than embarrassing that person because they don't or can't debate as well s you can.

Evolutionists and Creationists at the far end of both sides of this debate have one thing in common... their belief system is contingent upon being right about creation. You must always remember that if this is the case then beating them in a debate is pointless. If you want to witness to that particular type of individual you have to first win their hearts and their trust, then perhaps they will listen to what you have to say.

Sorry.... I disagree with how you see it. Your way only lulls the other into feeling no one truly has the truth. Or, everyone has their own truth of personal choosing.

"Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets."
Jesus Christ 30AD
​

To have truth, and to express it, is what got the prophets persecuted. You want to be well thought of? Fine. It will do nothing for the truth in itself.

Galatians 1:10 (New International Version)
"Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."
​

See the conflict between what you say? And what I see?

You say things that sound very nice and pleasant to human ears. Fine. It may be right for you, I suppose. But, please do not impose who and what you are on another, when someone else is conforming to the very words I just posted.

The truth will get the one having it opposed and in trouble when the truth is not wanted. So will be being obnoxious. Yet, the truth is seen as being obnoxious to those who follow the desires of their flesh.

Only the Word of God can show you what is the real issue here. Not how you personally feel on the matter. What personally feel, and what you personally feel... in the Light of God's Word, is meaningless if its only based upon personal desire and intention outside of what the Word tells us.


How to win friends and influence people is not what we have been called into. It must be the Holy Spirit who opens their eyes. Not our nice and winning personality. Think about it. If you had a super people winning personality? And, you followed false doctrine? What good is it? It would be harmful.


Now... here's the rub.

Galatians 5:17 (Amplified Bible)
"For the desires of the flesh are opposed to the [Holy] Spirit, and the [desires of the] Spirit are opposed to the flesh (godless human nature); for these are antagonistic to each other [continually withstanding and in conflict with each other], so that you are not free but are prevented from doing what you desire to do."
​

Bobby? Why did you believe in Jesus Christ?

Because Jeff was nice to me.


Bobby, why did you believe in young earth creationism?

Because I like the way Jeff presented it.
​

See? It makes no sense in the light of what the truth is. Now, some will always resent being refuted because they have built up walls of feeling comfortable with what they want to believe. They will be quick to call it flaming if they fail to remain objective.

Maybe the following will present better what I am trying to say.

A young man's thoughts heard out loud...

"I hated the way the pastor kept driving his point home. I hated what he said all the time while driving home from church.

Then.. two weeks later. It hit me while quietly eating dinner. He was right. I was being that way, and I was refusing to admit it. But, I hated his words when I heard them... I hated what he was telling me.. I did not want them to be true! They angered me!

Now? If he only told me nicely? In a way I wanted to be told? Would it have made a difference? Maybe it would have been easier for me to deny. Since if he seemed so pleasant about it? Surely, it could not be a serious matter.
​

I believe you fail to see that its not the messenger who wins others over to the Truth. It must be the Holy Spirit. That is. In regards to the Word of God. The Holy Spirit who uses the Word to cut like a two edged sword. Remember?

I said enough? Should I say? You just go your way. I will stay with mine? For, to become like you say I should be? I would have to stop being a real person. The person I have been called to be.

Luke 4:23-29 (New International Version)
"Jesus said to them, "Surely you will quote this proverb to me: 'Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.' "

"I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian."
.
All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff."​

The truth ... the real truth... does funny things to those who really do not want it. They may say they want it, until they find out what it is.



There are others here who see the same me as you do. They actually thank me for what I say at times.

Proverbs 27:5-6 (New International Version)
"Better is open rebuke
than hidden love.

Wounds from a friend can be trusted,
but an enemy multiplies kisses."
​

If you did not keep publically trying and tell me how to be? You would have heard none of this.



Now.. Please refute my point of view I just presented you. If not? Please, stop trying to get me to conform to what you desire me to be. Let's get back on topic.



And? Next time, PM me on such a matter. It would be the "nice" thing to do. In the mean time, you now helped set up a wall of resistance to my voice, that can use your perspective as an excuse to not have to hear what I might have to say. So? On such matters? PM the person.



Now... refute this post, or drop it. Back on topic.












In Christ, GeneZ

 

[ReformedChapin]

Woah this conversations seems to stray from its original intent. But I'll comment on the movie which I saw today. I like it a lot for most of the part. It strongly discusses the persecution that ID perponents face not only in the media but also in learning instatutions. I really wish Stein didn't try to connect Darwinism with the Holocust. The flaw I see with this is that this would immediately disconnect any evolutionists from the central message of the movie which is academic freedom. Throughout the movie Stein and ID proponets claim how they are consistanly attacked and misrepresented by the Media as a whole and they turn around and do it to Darwinists. I see the point in trying to connect evolution to what in the movie is basically shown as its "logical implications" of exterminating unwanted people (in this case the Jews). But evolution as a whole and neo-evolutionsts as a whole dont push this view...even if they are being inconsistant.

 

[Frisbee]

Decaf Gene! Decaf!!!

 

[Frisbee]

Okay, I actually went and read what you wrote Gene and here's my take on it...

I get the sense from your tone that you feel led to "preach the word", and used comparrisons from scripture to bolster that claim. You alluded to prophets telling the people things they didn't want to hear, and you are correct... the prophets were killed for saying things that the people didn't want to hear.

Matthew 23:29-36

29“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous,30saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’31Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.32Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.33You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?34Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,35so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.36Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Who was Jesus talking about Gene? Wasn't He talking about people running around telling everyone how religious they were, when He gave the example in His life as a man filled with love and mercy? You will notice in scripture that Jesus, with 100% consistency, has very harsh words and dealings with religious leaders, and contrawise nothing but love and forgiveness for the lost.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't speak the truth, heaven forbid no! I am saying that I aint feelin the love brother. But before you get angry and fire off another rebutal let me say this...

I've been on the Internet witnessing for years now. I'm also in the process of writing a book about this very subject beleive it or not! The book is based upon my experiences, and 99% of that is based upon learning over time that I was trying to win debates and had forgotten that I was giving a bad witness by my attitudes and actions. Or in other words I believe that I ruined my witness by attempting to make people see things the way I saw them. I was wrong. People need to hear the truth, but they also need to see the love of Christ inside you.

No, I wil not "refute" you, as in argue with you. But I will pray for you and I will pray that the Lord blesses you and keeps you...

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

Bless you brother!

Love in Christ... Pete

 

[Cris413]

I just would like to take a moment and give some guidance and direction to this thread...for clarity and understanding....

While it is understandable that from time to time the natural flow of conversation will veer off topic...

I'm sure we are all aware...the Holy Spirit doesn't always stay on topic either...



However...we are always called to discern the fruit of the Spirit...

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

v23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.


In all that we do and say...let us always ask ourselves...is this peaceful? Is it beneficial? Is it edifying?

So while we all enjoy a good conversation and a good debate...please let's keep these things in mind...

And we should always consider...above all else....Does what we do and say glorify and honor God?

It is always quite unfortunate when good threads take a turn for the worse and get shut down.

Peace

 

[Markus6]

Woah this conversations seems to stray from its original intent. But I'll comment on the movie which I saw today. I like it a lot for most of the part. It strongly discusses the persecution that ID perponents face not only in the media but also in learning instatutions. I really wish Stein didn't try to connect Darwinism with the Holocust. The flaw I see with this is that this would immediately disconnect any evolutionists from the central message of the movie which is academic freedom. Throughout the movie Stein and ID proponets claim how they are consistanly attacked and misrepresented by the Media as a whole and they turn around and do it to Darwinists. I see the point in trying to connect evolution to what in the movie is basically shown as its "logical implications" of exterminating unwanted people (in this case the Jews). But evolution as a whole and neo-evolutionsts as a whole dont push this view...even if they are being inconsistant.

They are not being inconsistent. Eugenics is an abuse of the theory of evolution and practically no evolutionists believe in eugenics or see a logical connection from evolution to eugenics. Theistic evolutionists, the group conveniently ignored by the film, will condemn eugenics for exactly the same reasons you do.

I saw the film last night and I am going to spend some time to write a decent review. I'll post or link to it here when I'm done if anyone is interested.

 

[GenemZ]

Okay, I actually went and read what you wrote Gene and here's my take on it...

I get the sense from your tone that you feel led to "preach the word", and used comparrisons from scripture to bolster that claim. You alluded to prophets telling the people things they didn't want to hear, and you are correct... the prophets were killed for saying things that the people didn't want to hear.



Who was Jesus talking about Gene? Wasn't He talking about people running around telling everyone how religious they were, when He gave the example in His life as a man filled with love and mercy? You will notice in scripture that Jesus, with 100% consistency, has very harsh words and dealings with religious leaders, and contrawise nothing but love and forgiveness for the lost.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't speak the truth, heaven forbid no! I am saying that I aint feelin the love brother. But before you get angry and fire off another rebutal let me say this...

I've been on the Internet witnessing for years now. I'm also in the process of writing a book about this very subject beleive it or not! The book is based upon my experiences, and 99% of that is based upon learning over time that I was trying to win debates and had forgotten that I was giving a bad witness by my attitudes and actions. Or in other words I believe that I ruined my witness by attempting to make people see things the way I saw them. I was wrong. People need to hear the truth, but they also need to see the love of Christ inside you.

No, I wil not "refute" you, as in argue with you. But I will pray for you and I will pray that the Lord blesses you and keeps you...

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

Bless you brother!

Love in Christ... Pete

This is a debate, sir. Not playing in the play ground. When in every day circumstances, if I acted like I do here? I would not be long for every day circumstances. Now? Let's stick with the topic? Enough of trying to mold me into your image?

Thank you. Please keep debating / discussing the movie.


In Christ, GeneZ



.

 

[Frisbee]

I wouldn't say that they ignored theistic evolutionists Markus, because theistic evolutionists are in fact ID proponents. There are million, billions shades of ID from Theistic Evolutionist to Young Earth Creationist, and if you stop and think about it you too are in the cross hairs of atheistic neo-Darwinists.

True or false Markus... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

You claim to be a Theistic Evolutionist so I will assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you will answer true. Well, then the difference between yourself and a Young Earth Creationist is in the details of your belief, but at the core you are both in agreement that the first verse of the bible is true.

On the other hand you have a belief system that absolutely requires an explanation of life minus the hand of God. Every single detail must be accounted for. Every process, every cause, every detail, everything bar nothing had to be the result of chance.

That example I gave earlier where I explained the heavy elements on planet earth. Atheistic evolutionists have got to accept their own observations of science, and science tells us that the heavy elements (everything past the first 26 elements on the periodic table) are the result of generations of the birth and death of stars. So it isn't just a matter of a big bang flinging matter to where we are and it coalescing into planet earth. The big bang occurred and a star was formed in our vicinity. It lived its entire life and imploded, dragging all the matter around it into a black hole, and then exploded again. Now repeat that several times, and you have the heavy elements for planet earth. Any rational human being I know will chuckle at the absurdity of that happening, but you know? It did, didn’t it?

It comes back to being able to look back and either seeing that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", or you have your hands quite full trying to account for the nearly infinite number of factors that not just occurred, but occurred in perfect harmony with almost infinite number of other similarly mathematically unlikely circumstances to arrive at nothing for an answer. It is by far the most irrational explanation that one could possibly believe in.

The same folks who wish to distance themselves from when the ugly side of neo-Darwinism rears its ugly head, are the same people, the same exact people who use evolutionism (is that a word?) to justify their rebellion against God.

Personally I find it very odd that theistic evolutionists cozy up to atheistic evolutionists. The reason is that that atheistic evolutionists justify their absence of faith on the very thing that you encourage them with by attacking films like this. Why don’t I ever hear theistic evolutionists witnessing to their atheistic counterparts in theory? And to add to the bizarre nature of this, you are in fact an Intelligent Design proponent is you affirm the first verse of the bible. So in essence you are attacking yourself whether you like to see or admit that or not.

You know I have a soft spot in my heart for folks who are passionate about evolution. The reason is primarily that I understand that the reason they are focused on the subject is that it is a leg of the chair from which they balance their beliefs on. But rather than removing the broken leg to make the chair crash down, I try to show them that the leg they are trusting to hold up the weight of their beliefs is in fact broken, and then offer them one that I believe works so as they rest their weight on that belief system they can see that it is the truth.

The truth, always the truth! The problem with the truth Markus is that most folks will use the truth, while very few realize that they are in fact not in possession of it in its purest form. And fewer still who are willing stop using the parts of it they wish to accept and ignoring the parts they wish to ignore, to bolster a belief. And fewer yet still are those who can accept it and everything that comes along with accepting the reality of the matter regardless of what they believe to be true, or more correctly wish to believe to believe to be true.

Make any sense?