The burden of proof lays the other way around.

by Tom
(New York)

It is not up to the creationists to disprove evolution; it is up to the evolutionists to prove their belief to be true, and they can't. Evolution is a theory which secularists dishonestly present as being irrefutable fact. If the Bible account of creation is unwelcome in public schools on the basis that it is a faith, then evolution should also be unwelcome on the same basis. It is a faith which is passed off as science. Teach evolution within the confines of a philosphy class if you wish, but to teach it in a science class is dishonest.

Believing that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, and believing in evolution at the same time is a mighty difficult trick to pull off. All scripture is inspired by God. Jesus is the Word made flesh. God cannot lie, therefore He cannot have inspired a creation account which is a lie. So how does one claim to believe that Jesus is Lord, while at the same time believing that He allowed a fable (a lie) to be included in His Word?

And how does one account for the existence of sin and death in the world if it did not enter through the one man Adam? Did God create men as sinners in the first place? Or is sin and evil not real? Then why did the Lord Jesus die on the cross, if sin and it's consequences aren't real and serious?

And why does God allow the apostle Paul to give such emphasis in Romans 5 to the position of lost men as being "in Adam?" If Adam wasn't real, then the position of being "in Adam" must also be not real. Then it follows that our new position "in Christ" must also be not real.
See how difficult it becomes to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible and believe in evolution at the same time?

It's also pretty distasteful that you feel so free to accuse creationists of being liars. Don't look now sir, but you are calling God a liar by saying that His account of the origin of the universe isn't true.

Comments for The burden of proof lays the other way around.

Click here to add your own comments

Nov 06, 2012

Living in Your Own World
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

Hi Tom.

Nothing you said is going to have an impact on anyone except those who already agree with you because you're living in your own world, talking like someone who can neither hear or see what's going on around him. We've already heard plenty of announcements from your world. We've looked at those announcements, rejected them for reasons that we have explained, and you haven't even noticed the rejections, the reasons, or the explanations.

Thus, repeating the pronouncements is not going to do any good.

There is no "burden of proof" anywhere. Burden of proof for what? The rest of us are interested in what's true, so we're exploring, learning, examining. We are not arguing with you or proving anything, despite the name of this web site. Thus, there is no "burden of proof" to be on anyone.

You asked a number of questions in your post, and you made a couple of assertions. You gave no reasons for your assertions; you just made these statements, as though we were supposed to believe they were true because you said so.

Well, we don't.

Then you asked questions. The questions have all been answered on this site, but it's clear you don't want answers anyway. Instead, you oddly think that those questions are unanswerable, when in fact they're not even very difficult for those of us who have been forced by the truth to answer them.

Finally, by Scriptural and historical Christian standards, you don't know what the Word of God is, so anything you say about it is going to be off. Also, your interpretation of inspiration is a narrow one that I and many others do not agree with.

I'm just trying to describe the real world around you that the rest of us are living in, should you decide you actually want to say something that's relevant to those of us who disagree with you. I'm not addressing your arguments because you didn't make any and because you wouldn't even pay attention to the answers, much less look at them.

Nov 06, 2012

Lying for Jesus
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

Oh, and as far as accusing people of lying for Jesus, I gave the exact specifics. I'm not sure how you can be offended except that I know you're living in your own little world, paying no attention to anything the rest of us say.

Nov 06, 2012

Evidence proves Intelligent Design.
by: John Castino

There is more proof of Intelligent Design than for evolution. Starting with the first life,,,, evolution can't answer that question - I.D. can.
Regarding evolution,, There are not enough transitional forms to believe that theory - they should be everywhere!
Also, Darwin knew that the "irreducible complexity" argument made the macro evolution theory difficult to believe. But he put his theory out there anyway,
Finally, the "junk DNA" argument that evolutionists used for years, is being proven false. In other words, scientists are finding a multitude of functions for "junk DNA" which takes one of their central arguments away from evolutionists. And the I.D. Scientists PREDICTED that functions would be found for so called junk DNA.
The more I study evolution vs I.D. Debate, I.D. wins. And it wins on the scientific arguments.

Nov 06, 2012

sin
by: Thomas Robertson

I'll address one of the topics which your article touched on, and that is sin.

In my analysis, that which theists call sin falls into three categories.

Number one: that which is contrary to human instinct.

I suggest that our ancestors lived in the extended family system throughout most of our prehistoric past. I suggest that pedophilia, homosexuality, and various other sexual paraphilias are the product of the nuclear family system. In my own article on this Website, I explain this view in greater detail.

Number two: that which is in accordance with human instinct, but has been rendered obsolete.

Throughout our prehistoric past, the world was more sparsely populated. There was less reason to communicate with people of other tribes. Besides, it was in the interests of survival to avoid people of other tribes. If a strange person approached you and said something nonsensical like "bonjour, monsieur," you wouldn't know WHAT that meant! The safest assumption is that it meant "I'm going to knock your head off."

The world has become more densely populated. We have to trade with each other in order to survive, and people of all shades and hues have immigrated all over the world. But our inner brains, as slow as they are, don't know this. So we continue to think that people different from ourselves are out to knock our heads off.

Number three: masculine behavior.

I admit that I don't understand this one in evolutionary terms, as I do numbers one and two.
I can't understand why pornography is considered sinful if drugstore novels aren't. They both tell the consumer lies about the opposite sex.
I can't understand why prostitution is considered sinful if escort services aren't. Again, they both tell the consumer lies about the opposite sex.

You can postulate fallen angels if you wish, but I think most of it can be explained in terms of evolutionary theory.

Nov 07, 2012

Thanks
by: Dave

Thanks for sending me these updates to this website as they come in. I personally still feel that God made creation is the only answer but I am open to listening to the evolutionary side of the arguement. God created us in his own image and we create things all the time. I am waiting to see if we can finally create something from nothing that evolves into something completely different. Right now the only proof we have is that we are here so at some point something had to be created. At this point in time only God knows his creation completely. Who am I to believe he did not put mechanisms in the creation to evolve or adapt to ever changing environments or to even time itself.

I still wonder why with all the thousands of new species that are being discovered every year that we can't catch something evolving from one species to another. So I guess until that happens I am still going to rely on my faith that God created it.

Nov 09, 2012

Good thoughts Dave
by: Anonymous

Dave,

Your position is very sound and well reasoned. I could not,have said it as well or succinctly.

Thanks,

John castino

Nov 10, 2012

new species
by: Thomas Robertson

Hello, Dave!

There was a pair of wallabies which escaped from a zoo in Hawaii and made their home in the wilderness. Their offspring came to thrive on Hawaiian vegetation. This caused them to change to the point that they could no longer mate with their Australian cousins.

There is also a microbe which has come to feast on nylon to the point that they have form a new species. I forget the real name of this microbe, but it has been nicknamed the "nylon bug."

Feb 01, 2013

Answering John Castino
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

John: >>Starting with the first life,,,, evolution can't answer that question - I.D. can.<<

I.D. is an argument for nothing at all. Intelligent Design admits that evolution could have occurred. It doesn't even deny it! It just tries to prove that God must have intervened for evolution to happen.

Attempts to "prove" God never work. Do you really think that is how God wants to evangelize the world?

If you do, then the provers of God, like you, are failing miserably because they just look like dishonest, close-minded amateurs pretending to be knowledgeable. You can argue that is not what you are, but you cannot argue that is what you appear to be to those you apparently think you will reach with your uninformed scientific comments.

John:>>Regarding evolution,, There are not enough transitional forms to believe that theory - they should be everywhere!<<

This is not true, and it is addressed on the "missing links" page. See the button in the Navbar.

>>>Darwin knew that the "irreducible complexity" argument made the macro evolution theory difficult to believe. But he put his theory out there anyway.<<

That's because difficult to believe is not the same as false. See Darwin's arguments on the eye in evolution-of-the-eye.html on this site.

Also, the Intelligent Design page, linked to on the Navbar, has a link to my page on irreducible complexity. No I.D. advocate has come up with a legitimately irreducibly complex organ. Michael Behe was shown in a court of law to be "lying for Jesus" in his use--excuse me, abuse--of evidence for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. (See "Judgment Day," the video, available on Amazon.)

John: >>Finally, the "junk DNA" argument that evolutionists used for years, is being proven false.<<

It is true that junk DNA is appearing to be, mostly, useful. There are pseudogenes that really are junk DNA.

John: >>... which takes one of their central arguments away from evolutionists.<<

No one uses junk DNA as a central argument for evolution. It's simply a result of it.

John:>> The more I study evolution vs I.D. Debate, I.D. wins.<<

Better study more. I.D. does not oppose evolution, but admits it.

May 19, 2014

HELLO THERE!
by: Anonymous

Ok I can't exactly read what the guy said above me, but his research is off.
He says that by believing in creation proves evolution and that those who think creation occurred believe also in evolution. False: research shows that radiocarbon dating is off, for even animals different body parts from the same animal have been concluded as tens of thousands of years off. Evolutionists have created fake data, such as mixing fossils to support the ape to man idea. This has happened at least a dozen recorded times. Ideas such as junk DNA and RNA on the origin of life have been also made to cover up large holes in evolution.
The more I look online, the more I find desperate evolutionists who make up information. I could make a list of 15 accurate proofs against evolutionists, and I would enjoy seeing new ideas to go around the well-known facts. By itself, the first and second laws of thermodynamics disprove evolution.
As a final note to any followers of Jesus out there, if you search anything to support creation or disprove evolution, about 75% of the results will be against creation. This simply proves how desperate evolutionists are, and we should truly feel sorry for them.
And I am 12 years old. LOL!

May 19, 2014

response to the above
by: Thomas Robertson

>>>Research shows that radiocarbon dating is off, for even animals different body parts from the same animal have been concluded as tens of thousands of years off.

That's a new one on me.
Can you document that?

>>>>Evolutionists have created fake data, such as mixing fossils to support the ape to man idea. This has happened at least a dozen recorded times.

You mean like the Piltdown Man? Scientists suspected from the beginning that it was a hoax. In fact, some scientists wrote that if the Piltdown Man was genuine, then all of known evolutionary science would have to be revamped.

That's one example. What are the other eleven?

>>>>Ideas such as junk DNA and RNA on the origin of life have been also made to cover up large holes in evolution.

A biologist has been able to bring birds' junk DNA to the fore and breed birds with teeth. Doesn't that support the claim that birds are descended from reptiles?

>>>>I could make a list of 15 accurate proofs against evolutionists.

Fine. You have my invitation.
Mr. Pavao, does this person have your invitation, too?

>>>>By itself, the first and second laws of thermodynamics disprove evolution.

Duane Gish travelled all over the country, preaching words to that effect--to lay audiences, most of whom are not highly educated in matters scientific.
An editor of a scientific journal sent Gish a letter, asking him to write an article on the subject for his journal, explaining fully in scientific terminology just where the scientists are missing the boat. Such an article, if Gish's boasts were valid, would show the scientists the errors of their ways.
The editor never heard back from Gish. Apparently, Gish preferred to brainwash people who didn't know better.

May 19, 2014

Evolution
by: Anonymous

There are too many gaps in the fossil record to believe unguided evolution. Even Darwin said this, but predicted if his theory be true, the fossil gaps would be filled. - NOT

Fine tuning of the universe is impossible without guidance. Even many atheists admit it's "miraculous like".

Fine tuning of the earth is impossible without guidance. The biosphere and hydrologic cycle alone are impossible without metaphysical intervention. And what about the 28 other fine tuning factors?

"Consciousness" that humans possess is inexplicable without some being creating it.

I admit that many bad things have been done in the name of religion. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. One of the theologies are correct. And the evidence strongly favors Jesus.

May 20, 2014

reply to Anonymous
by: Thomas Robertson

>>>>There are too many gaps in the fossil record to believe unguided evolution. Even Darwin said this, but predicted if his theory be true, the fossil gaps would be filled. - NOT

There have been oodlums of links found since Darwin's time.
The only problem is, every time the Evolutionists fill a vacancy, the Creationists declare a vacancy on either sice.

>>>>Fine tuning of the universe is impossible without guidance. Even many atheists admit it's "miraculous like".

What fine tuning? We don't even have an integral number of days in a year. That's why we have to declare leap days, leap minutes, and leap seconds.

>>>>Fine tuning of the earth is impossible without guidance. The biosphere and hydrologic cycle alone are impossible without metaphysical intervention.

Assuming that there is a God, how does that negate evolution?
Is it because evolutionary literature doesn't mention God?
That's because one can only talk about one topic at a time.
I once read a book about Johann Sebastian Bach. The author makes no mention of William Shakespeare. Don't you think it's deplorable that one would fail to appreciate such as great dramatist as William Shakespeare?

>>>>And what about the 28 other fine tuning factors?

I am asking out of genuine curiosity, what 28 other fine tuning factors?
I can't find them in a Google search.

>>>>"Consciousness" that humans possess is inexplicable without some being creating it.

At one time, the sun was was inexplicable in scientific terms.
So the people invented a sun god.
Thunder wsa also inexplicable at one time.
So the people invented a thunder god.
In short, everything that is inexplicable is declared supernatural.
Maybe consciousness will someday be explained in scientific terms, maybe it won't.

>>>>I admit that many bad things have been done in the name of religion. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Religion got me in a mess, science got me out.
If you want any more information, I'll share it with you.

>>>>One of the theologies are correct. And the evidence strongly favors Jesus.

That is quite a claim you have there. Would you like to support it?

May 20, 2014

Reply to Thomas
by: Anonymous

Hi Thomas, thanks for replying. Some of the 28 other fine tuning items are: dark matter, speed of expansion of the universe, gravity, speed of light, tectonic plate movement, etc. etc.. There really are probably more than 28 actually.
The point is Thomas, that all of these "forces" have exactly the correct speeds, forces, etc.. To allow matter to form, matter not to be crushed, and producing the right mix of oxygen, hydrogen, helium, carbon, etc...to allow life to form.

I was an agnostic until I began a 2 year journey to study the sciences of cosmology, cosmogony, chemistry, biology, etc... I wanted to know the truth. I encourage you to do the same with an open mind and see where you come out.

Take care,

John C.

May 20, 2014

Thomas story
by: Anonymous

Thomas,

I'd love to hear your story. My email address is. Jcastino98@yahoo.com

Oct 20, 2014

Fine tuning
by: Paul (Webmaster)

Christians, not just creationists, tend to exaggerate the evidence when we find it on our side. Plate tectonics is not one of the things that had to be "fine-tuned" for life. I doubt seriously there is anything approaching 28 things.

However, gravity is certainly one. If the force of gravity was different, we wouldn't have galaxies, stars, and planets.

It's not just Christians who say that the fundamental forces of the universe have to be the way they are to support life. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the arguments about it. They have a section on whether or not the universe is fine-tuned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Disputes_regarding_the_existence_and_extent_of_fine-tuning

Most of the argument appears to be concerning theist uses of fine-tuning, not really whether or not certain constants had to be the way they are for life to exist.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to lying-for-jesus.

Home

Evolution

Creation

Faith

Miscellaneous

Science & Honesty

The Author

"I have been a biologist for a long time, and I hope I never stop getting shivers in my spine when I think about the beauty of how we come to know things in biology.

Biologists make predictions, then they go out into the field or the lab to see if their predictions hold up. When hundreds of predictions of this sort are fulfilled, a theory reaches the point where it becomes certain, at least on a broad level. And that is where we are with evolution."

– Falk, Darrel. Professor of Biology. Point Loma Nazarene University. California.