"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors."
James 2:8

I realize I haven't updated this page in a long time; that's because I now publish these on our forum so others can comment. If you would like to read more of these, please visit our "Wild Emails @ CLE" board.

RED = Letter Received
BLACK = CLE Response

Atheist Ramblings [Katerina - 6/1/13]
Definitions of Evolution & Logic [Nathan - 6/7/13]
God & Evolution [Oliver - 1/26/14]
Macro-Evolution & Vestigial Structures [Ryan - 6/12/14]
Big Bang & Stars [Fernando - 11/7/14]
Billy Graham Fan [Jim - 12/10/14]
Unprepared Atheist/Agnostic [Nate - 10/7/15]
Public School Teacher Baby Rage [David - 9/18/16]


From David; Sept 18, 2016 "Stumbled" across a couple of your articles/columns/blogs. Sir, take a pill. Two things: 1) It's so great that we have YOU to tell other people what's right and what's wrong. How would the world get along without your Solomonic insights?
It seems there's a misunderstanding here; I'm not telling people what I think is right and wrong. I'm telling what the LORD GOD says is right and wrong. If you don't like that, don't read it; I'm not responsible for you.

2) You remind me a lot of the "Sheldon" character on "Big Bang Theory." Everyone knows Sheldon is crazier than an outhouse rat, but he clings to the mantra, "I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested."
I don't watch TV, sorry.

You poor, poor man. Get some help. You can be happier than the miserable life you're living.
We're poor yes, but we're quite content, thanks. Peace to you and your household, and I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would bless you and your family with all your needs throughout the coming week.

Okay, smart*** (I'd tried to be civil for as long as I could).... you knew by "poor," I meant pathetic. Get some help. I am genuinely concerned for deluded persons such as you. I think it was Twain (...an author...Mark Twain, you've probably heard of him... but maybe you've never read literature either) who said, "When the whole world says you're drunk, and you are sure you haven't even had a single drink, the least you can do is lay down for a while." Let me explain the quote for you AS I AM THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL LITERATURE MEANING! It means, when MOST MOST MOST people disagree with you, you are probably/likely/most assuredly wrong. Google "mental health clinics in my area." I'm sure there are professionals who can help you.
Hmm, that's interesting, because the majority of Germans thought Hitler was a good leader. It's interesting that you seem to be unable to think for yourself, and rather make decisions based on what "most people" think. I was laughing reading this; that you believe majority opinion is evidence of truth (i.e. argument ad populum; that's a logical fallacy). I can't take you seriously with childish fallacies like that; I've got better things to do. Have a wonderful day.

YOU LOSE! Christopher, you really don't get metaphors, allegories, humor, sarcasm - - - any of it . But, here's why YOU LOSE: Godwin's Law says the longer you discuss any issue, someone will compare it to Hitler, Nazism, or the Holocaust. A corollary to Godwin says, whoever makes that comparison, loses the argument. You lose. That's enough. We can agree to disagree. But think about getting some help. At least ask somebody. We'll never agree on anything. I won't read or reply to anything else you send. It was, however, interesting and instructive.
Whether he would read it or not, I wouldn't write back someone so childish; it's not worth my time. I simply wanted to point out to readers here that, even though he claims to be Lutherian (which is pretty much Catholic), he used the exact argument I said people would use in our article on "Atheists/Evolutionists Cannot Justify Morality." Adolf Hitler was elected by the majority; his political party received more votes than any other party running in 1932 (i.e. 44%), and thus, the majority of Germans at that time did put their vote toward Hitler, thinking that was the best choice for Germany. The problem is that David believes that same process (i.e. majority opinion) provides evidence for moral truth, which is completely fallacious, and he was embarrassed that I pointed this out to him. He wrote his final letter in some of the largest, all-caps font I've ever seen, and like I said, I don't have time for childishness.
He gave me enough information to investigate him a bit, and the saddest and scariest part about him is that (at the time he wrote me this) he's a public school teacher in St. Paul Minnesota. Just one more reason I highly recommend parents to get their children out of the public school system if at all possible. (i.e. Go to private or home school.)


From Nate; Oct 7, 2015 I've just happened onto one of your articles regarding evolution (this article in particular, from June 2013, concerned the bird-dinosaur connection). I have a few questions for you. First, if it is only possible for each creature to produce offspring after its own "kind" as you claim, how do we define each creature's "kind"? After all, species are simply a taxonomical distinction invented by man relatively recently. Surely all of earth's biology can't be governed by the rule that no creature may cross an imaginary line humans made up.
It wouldn't be imaginary if evolutionists would let go of their religious beliefs and do some investigation. We have already answered that inquiry in "What is a Biblical Kind?"
I applaud your skepticism of "kind" as a term to seek a proper definition; I only wish you would turn that same skepticism onto the term "species," which some semi-honest evolutionists (as opposed to dishonest ones) have admitted there is no clear definition for. We have covered that topic in "Evolutionism: A New-Age Religion - What is a Species?"

Surely you don't deny that microevolution (small changes in a population by natural or artificial selection) is a real effect in biology. After all, if it were not, selective breeding in agriculture would be completely impossible. We've managed to breed our domestic plants and animals so extensively that some of our earliest food crops have begun to speciate due to artificial selection.
And there's the nebulus term species (speciate) I just mentioned. I knew you would you start using it, having no idea what it really is (I'm reading as I respond); just as Eugene McCarthy, evolutionary theoriest and geneticiest says:
"species (n): A given type of organism is treated as a species if it is assigned a binomial name. There is no general consensus among scientists concerning how to decide whether any given group of organisms should be so treated since there is no general agreement on the definition of the word species."
(See 'species', Macro Evolution Online Biological Dictionary, developed by Eugene McCarthy, evolutionary theoriest and geneticist, [macroevolution.net/biology-dictionary-sasi.html], retrieved Aug 29, 2014)
More documentation on that subject is covered in the article link above on species.
What you don't see, and I can already tell from your words, is that you witness some small changes, which no one argues with, but then take a leap of religious faith to believe these changes are unlimited; believing that pigs can fly given enough time. I admire you for your extraordinary faith, but I don't have enough faith to believe that.

But even in the realm of modern science we can observe the long-term effects of evolution. For a good example of this, look up the "E. coli long-term evolution experiment", an experiment tracking genetic changes in 12 populations of E. coli bacteria since 1988.
What do you mean, "look it up?" Did you bother checking out our website first? There's a search bar on it for a reason. We have an article called "Creationist Answer to Lenski's Ecoli," which points out the major assumptions it's based on, and that if anything evolutionists would have worked on to prove MACRO-evolution, the ecoli experiments should have done it, but after decades of work, bacteria are still producing bacteria, which supports the Biblical model that the changes are limited.

The fact of the matter is that natural selection does happen. Even without a specific study (like the E. coli experiment) to verify that, an understanding of how genetic reproduction works would lead to the logical conclusion that certain mutations will tend to become dominant in a population, and that, given enough time, such changes can lead to major changes in that population.
You're just using vague terms. I could agree with most of what you just said depending on what you mean. For example, if by "major change," you mean that wolves with long hair might go to wolves with short hair that would want to live farther south due to warmer temperatures, I'm in complete agreement with you because that supports that Biblical model; not to mention there's no scientific research that denies that.
However, that's not what you really believe. You believe that if pigs keep breeding, the "major change" is that they'll grow wings and fly, which directly contradicts every piece of knowledge we have accumulated about nature. You're welcome to your beliefs; I really don't care what kind of wild religious things you want to believe in, but don't think you're going to convince me of your cultic dogmas without something substantial to back it up.

I understand your skepticism of modern science, to an extent. I am an advocate of skepticism in all things, and I find it admirable that you have taken it upon yourself to research these issues in such detail.
I haven't seen that in your words so far. You seem to be skeptical of all things, except when it comes to Evolutionism; likely due to the religious indoctrination you paid for (or got in debt for) in school. (Assuming you went to USU.) [USU was the source of his email address.]

Unfortunately, I fear that your religious beliefs may have skewed your view, so that rather than being a skeptic, you've become exactly what you accuse evolutionary biologists of being: an ideologue with no interest in finding the truth.
That's what the Bible calls a "hypocritical judge," meaning that you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing me of doing. The difference between you and I is that I have referenced documentation to back up what I'm saying, and you're preaching your opinions. The funny thing about it is, if what I was writing was just a collection of opinions (i.e. blog), and not research website that was incredibly convincing to you, you would have just ignored it and not bothered to contact me.

I am confident that, given a proper consideration of all the pertinent evidence, you will find yourself faced with two options: accept that evolution by natural selection is very nearly a settled science and makes perfect logical sense, or convince yourself that the entire scientific community is lying to you deliberately in order to promote... some sort of agenda that evolution promotes. You've probably got more theories on that than I do.
That's a false dilemma logical fallacy. That's where you give two options, neither of which is correct. You claim yourself to be skeptical, but then limit yourself to two options; is that what you learned to do in college? I heard an evolutionist once say, "Beware the sound of one-hand clapping."
No one's arguing against natural selection; I'm arguing against your pigs-can-fly-given-enough-time religious worldview that you falsely call "science." What you've done in this letter is say, "Because I don't understand the line between 'kinds,' therefore I choose to believe that a rock turned into a mankind over 4.6 billion years." If you can't see a religious cult in that, I can't help you.

I don't mean to be a prolific writer of emails to your blog, so this will be my last. I've just read your article on "How to Talk About Atheism", and it seems to me you've misunderstood the very nature of atheism.
An atheist doesn't agree with an article exposing atheism? *gasp*

Contrary to popular belief among religious people,
Like yourself.

atheism is not the belief that no god or gods exist. That is a form of atheism, known as gnostic atheism. It's the atheist equivalent of the theist position of claiming to know that God exists (a person who takes such a position is called a "gnostic theist"). Fortunately, very few atheists take the gnostic position, and those who do tend to have very faulty arguments for their belief (I'm not saying their belief is wrong, simply that I've yet to encounter a convincing argument in favor of it, and thus consider it an unproven hypothesis, a bit like the Bigfoot stories).
I can already hear the crowds of atheists I've talked to who will argue against you that "very few" take that position.

Rather than adopting the gnostic position, most atheists are "agnostic atheists". An agnostic atheist doesn't claim there is no God. Agnostic atheists simply don't know, and don't take a position on the existence or non-existence of God.
So you're an agnostic. I understand that's not the same as atheism. The article wasn't called "How to talk to Angostics," nor do I plan on writing one because agnostics are far worse since they just ride the fence, never willing to take a stance on anything (purposely, because they fear if they make a positive statement towards something, they can be proven wrong). I'm waiting for your point...

Basically, gnostic theists make a claim that God exists, and agnostic atheists ask for some evidence of logical argument in favor of God's existence. Not having received what they would consider a valid argument, they treat the existence of God as an unproven hypothesis. We generally don\'t let unproven hypotheses rule us, and often that can be confused with denying the claim outright (for example, most people don't believe in Bigfoot, but none have yet to absolutely disprove his existence, so we act as if Bigfoot doesn't exist until we have evidence that he does).
I'm already aware of these beliefs, and that's not what was addressed in our article: "How to Talk About Atheism"

Also, I found your rejection of godless logic rather fascinating. If I understood your argument correctly, we can't know anything for sure without an all-knowing being telling us, and thus cannot know if our reasoning is valid unless it originates from a supernatural source (if I've misunderstood your position, I apologize).
Okay, now we're on the subject matter. My argument was that the laws of logical have a transcendental nature to them, meaning that they are universal, abstract, and unchanging. I don't care if you're an atheist, agnostic, or any other flavor you want to argue, the fact of the matter is that an atheist is stuck in hopeless circular reasoning from the very start when they attempt to justify the laws of logic.
Atheists claim to be logical. They claim to be reasonable. So since they are making positive claims for these things to exist, and since they require that a Bible-believing Christian like myself to give a justification and proof for the existence of God, then I ask how they can justify universal, abstract, unchanging entities like the laws of logic to exist in their atheistic universe? In my experience, not one atheist I have spoken with has even begun a logical attempt to explain the laws of logic, and many have literally made an excuse to me by saying, "We don't need to justify ourselves," with a totally elitist attitude. That should tell us everything we need to know about atheism right there.

I agree to an extent with this position. I agree that we cannot know anything for sure; even Descartes's famous "I think, therefore I am" is questionable. But that doesn't mean we should allow ourselves to be paralyzed by existential doubt over the issue of knowledge itself.
Exactly! That was the point of my article. If a man were truly were an atheist, then he would be paralyzed by doubt of knowing nothing for sure. So to avoid that paralyzed existence, the atheist must become a hypocrite by adopting the Christian Biblical worldview of presupposing that the laws of logic and reason are justified at the start (so he can live a normal life), but the difference between the atheist and the Christian is that the atheist denies the power (authority) thereof; or in other words, the atheist relies on the Christian God of the Bible for his non-paralyzed existence, but openly denies God with his mouth.
That's why 2Ti 3:5 says wicked men have a form of godliness, but deny the power [i.e. authority] thereof.

The fact of the matter is that our senses provide the only information about the outside world we have access to (if you believe in some sort of God-to-human communication, I would classify that as a "sense", albeit a spiritual one). We have no way of knowing if the data our senses give us is accurate or not. We have no way of knowing if the laws of logic we know are correct or not. But we can do one thing about it: We can experiment to see if the laws of logic as we know them can accurately predict what data our senses will give us. True, that data may not represent the outside world, but there's nothing we can do about that, and no way we could possibly test it, so we use laws of logic that appear to be true in the world that is apparently around us, whether that world exists or not.
Translated simply: "I sense my senses are valid." That's the hopeless circular reasoning I'm talking about, and I've heard this for many years from atheists all over the world who simply ignore the obvious major contradiction. The last atheist we had on our podcast attempted the same argument: "I Can't Justify Logic - CLE Podcast"
The bottom line is: They hate the Christian God of the Bible, and ignoring the problem is often a better solution for them than to have to admit they are not good people, are guilty of breaking God's laws, and will be judged for their sin with death in hell.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
-Hebrews 9:27

Clock's ticking.

So basically, logic as we know it may not be applicable to whatever world really exists, but as far as we can tell, it's applicable to the only reality we have access the one we perceive.
"I sense my sense are valid." "I reason my reason is reasonable." "I think my thoughts are thunk." That's hopelessly circular, but I do thank you for helping me prove the point in my article, and for your honest admission of what you really believe. (Very few I talk to are willing to admit these things, and I do genuinely thank you for that.)

I found it especially interesting that you posited God as the solution to any problems with the objectivity of logic. After all, any influence of God or heavenly messages would have to reach our minds the same way anything does: through our senses (whether physical or spiritual).
The question: Is all knowledge acquired through the senses? Helen Keller (who was not a born-again Christian as most people believe) had a Catholic priest communicate to her about the concept of God, and she said she had already known there was a God before she was ever told anything about it. How did she acquire that knowledge outside of her senses?
You don't even know if the laws of logic exist because they are abstract (i.e. they are not material; they can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled). You said yourself you're relying on your senses for knowledge (which is hopeless circular reasoning), but the very "reasoning" you're using to make your statements requires knowledge acquired outside the senses. You may want to considering reading up more on this subject before writing me again, or at the very least, watch the video link I provided on our CLE Podcast.

Since we've already established that we have no way of knowing if these senses are giving us an accurate picture of reality, doesn't any communication from God fall under the same suspicion as a signal from one's eyes?
We haven't "already established" those things. You're trying to pull me into your hopelessly circular worldview, and answer the question from it. I don't subscribe to your circular reasoning.
And again, your skepticism applies to everything EXCEPT atheism/evolutionism, and that's where you stop being skeptical because you're refusing to address your own arguments based on the statements you just made. You just told me you have no way of knowing anything, and have to ASSUME your senses are valid by your senses, but yet you just told me a moment ago: "I am confident that, given a proper consideration of all the pertinent evidence, you will find yourself faced with two options: accept that evolution by natural selection is very nearly a settled science and makes perfect logical sense, or convince yourself that the entire scientific community is lying to you deliberately in order to promote... some sort of agenda that evolution promotes." (Btw, "confidence" means "faith.")
And that shows me that you're making these decisions on pure religious speculation and assumption because you don't even know if your own thoughts are valid. What I'm saying is that, to live your daily life, you walk around with a Christian Biblical presupposition, but then with your mouth claim you're an atheist/agnostic. You don't live the way you say you believe, and that's called a hypocrite; it's also why the Bible tells us (in Romans 1) that atheists don't exist.

Many people have believed themselves to be prophets and seers in the past, and many of those have suffered from diagnosable mental illnesses (or we think they did. Again, we have no way of knowing anything for sure). How can you know that your mind is not simply being deceived by itself or some outside source? How are you sure that God is really speaking to you? And how are you sure God isn't lying? Because he told you he can't lie? Anyway, thanks for taking the time. I look forward to hearing from you.
Well, it doesn't seem to me like you actually read the whole article. Because I explain it; it's called a presupposition, or in other words, you presuppose these things to be true (i.e. faith). You make a presupposition, and that is "I sense my senses are valid," which simply proves that without the Christian God of the Bible, you can't prove anything. Again, the difference between the atheist and the Christian is that the atheist refuses to admit his faith.

At the very least, I have an avenue to certainty and knowledge, whereas you have nothing but hopeless circular reasoning, and if you want to put your faith in that, go for it; I don't care what you want to believe. Just keep in mind the Bible has already warned you that you are guilty of breaking God's laws, and you will be judged by Him, whether you want to claim you believe in Him or not; there is no escaping that judgment seat.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23


From Jim; Dec 10, 2014 I understand the "feeling" you have that you believe pointing out what you think is bringing a truth into the open. But there are several things you may not take into account. First of all, until you know the complete story of anything, making "absolute" statements are ill advised. I've been on and seen for a fact, over and over again that reporters, who you need to remember are fallible sinful humans as we all are, and have agendas, take out of context what their "subjects" or "interviewee's" say.
Uh... I don't know you, and I've never spoken with you; what is this about?

So, unless you actually hear what anyone, including Billy Graham actually said as opposed to being written by a reporter.
Oh, you're a Graham fan. Okay, I've got a context now. You're referring to our article: "Wolves in Costume: Billy Graham"

I can just as easily say that the reporter who is not a christian, or who clearly doesn't believe this or that has manipulated the article. Then you don't know what my agenda might be about the reporter. The point is, until you have a conversation yourself with Billy, and actually find out if what you are putting on line "paper" is in fact what he said, and is in fact what he believes, you are only speculating and you ARE IN FACT POTENTIALLY WRITING SOMETHING UNTRUE.
So when Billy Graham directly states the following (and this is in our article on Graham):
GRAHAM: "Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Bhuddist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ...and I think that they are saved and will be with us in heaven."
So according to everything Jim has written to me so far -- even though Billy Graham stated this denial of the Lord Jesus Christ on national television, Jim believes he didn't say that on national television. Okay, would you then care to give some other explanation for Graham's own words, or did you just want to deny that he said that?

You expect that a reporter correctly stated something, you are giving that reporter who you don't know the complete benefit of what he wrote as being true.
There's video of him saying it on our website. Multiple videos of Graham's own testimonies.

You actually believe that Billy Graham, who's 501C3 organization is so transparent you can see the moon through it. He has bent over backwards to "do it right"
If he'd follow the Lord Jesus Christ, he could just walk a straight path instead of having to play limbo.

You think the Lord is happy about you picking apart other people?????
No, but He's pleased with rebuke. I don't know which "lord" you serve, but mine tells me to rebuke:

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
-Titus 1:13

That's a excerpt from the Bible. I don't know if you are familiar with that book or not because I never spoken with you before.

You better understand that accusing someone of Apostasy is a Holy Spirit Function.
I don't recall accusing him of apostasy. I think I said he was a heretic.

The Lord and Apostles warned us to watch out for Apostates, But they also Warned and commanded us and YOU, to reach out to brothers personally and individually FIRST, to bring them back to the LORD if in fact they have fallen away. DID YOU DO THAT?????????????????
No, because he's not a brother in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. He's never believed the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I have documentation on our website clear back to the 1950s.

Matthew 7 and 18, the passages about Judging and Planks in your own EYE is specifically for Christians to other Christians, NOT as most people think JUDGING ANYONE. Of course we as Christians look at behavior of non-Christians and realize they are not saved and share Christ if the Holy spirit leads us.
But, in the case of Christian to Christian, before you "JUDGE" a person who claims to be a BROTHER (which you don't know there heart ) The lord wants us to quietly go to them first. DID YOU???????????????? If you didn't, then you have knowingly gone against Christs own direct instruction.

We've already addressed the "don't judge me" folks with thorough Scripture in "Unbiblical Cop-outs: Don't Judge Me!"
If Graham was actually a born-again Christian, you'd have an argument. But he's not, and so far, I haven't seen any evidence that you've even acknowledged Graham's own words, not to mention, this strange emphasis you are putting on my shoulders, when Graham's own church is ignoring his heresy (and they are the ones specifically responsible with rebuking him according to Mat 18).
But if you really want me to rebuke Billy Graham, send him on out to my house in Indiana, and I'll be glad to set him straight on what the Bible says.

Secondly, based on what you wrote, you are making the "judgement" that the entire catholic church is Apostate. Readers, especially newer Christians might think you are saying that a catholic cannot be saved. Are you saying that????
I don't recall saying they're apostates. I said the Catholic church and its teaching are heresy. Those who believe and teach those doctrines are heretics.
We cover that in lengthy detail in "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism."

Clearly the Lord and new testament authors were very concerned about Apostasy, and that the Visible Church will be full of Unsaved people. The Gospels all give Jesus account of the farmer planting the 4 types of seeds, 1 - birds ate the seed that fell on the pathway and never took root, 2 - seed that was shallow and was burned by the sun, 3 - seeds grew up in the thorns and were choked out when they were young plants 4 - seed that fell into good soil and various times of production. 3 out of 4 didn't become good wheat. Every parable Jesus told about people hearing the Word and becoming Christians, the majority DID NOT BECOME CHRISTIAN!!!!!!!!
That's true, most of them are false converts, and we have covered that thoroughly in "Eternal Security & False Converts" on our website.

Ooo! Jim has determined that I have not considered something. I'm interested to know what it is.

- in the book of Acts, when the Apostles came up against men and women PREACHING CHRIST, healing in Christs name but they were not doing this for the sake of Christ but to be followed by people and get paid. Yet God used them anyway.
Really? Did Billy tell you that? Or did you have a specific example you can give from that book I mentioned earlier? Because I can give an example of the opposite:

And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
-Acts 16:16-18

Even though she spoke the truth, that the apostles were the servants of the most high God, Paul still rebuked the evil within her because she was possessed by a demon.

You are trying to tear down a man and organization that has legitimately through the HOLY SPIRIT lead more people to Christ than all century's combined. Of all those saved at Billy Graham crusades, how many of those people then have witnessed to others, brought others to Christ.
Wait, I thought earlier you said that the majority did not become Christian because they were false converts, but now you're saying Billy Graham has saved large masses of people? There's a contradiction somewhere in there.

And the Other HUGE ISSUE you are not GETTING IS,
Ooo! Something else I don't understand. I'm sitting on the edge of my seat.

THE people who are NOT BELIEVERS BUT THINK THEY ARE, who are hearing the message outside of a church that might not be preaching right, might through the Holy Spirit finally come to the truth.
So what Jim is claiming I'm not "GETTING" is that people who aren't saved might one day be saved. No kidding? Please, share with me some more milk of the Word.

You state that Billy Graham is leading people to Hell. You state that Billy Graham is living in Riches and Glory.

You have not done a true investigation. The one who will stand before the judgement seat and lose reward my brother is YOU.
So, I quoted Billy Graham directly from his own words on national television, and Jim says I've not done true investigation. You may want to find someone else to share your complaints with because I simply cannot help someone like that.

All you bogus out of contest analysis, something is wrong with you. Badly wrong.
Okay, you can believe that if you want, but you won't hear or read me saying what Billy Graham has said on national television:
GRAHAM: "I think Islam is misunderstood too, because Mohammed had a great respect for Jesus... I think that we're closer to Islam than we really think we are."
If that statement doesn't have a great impact on you, perhaps you should read Islam: Religion of Terror on our website and then read Graham's quote again.

Allow me to quote from your letter: "You think the Lord is happy about you picking apart other people?????"
Another quote from Jim: "But, in the case of Christian to Christian, before you "JUDGE" a person who claims to be a BROTHER (which you don't know there heart) The lord wants us to quietly go to them first. DID YOU???????????????? If you didn't, then you have knowingly gone against Christs own direct instruction."
I pray our Lord Jesus Christ bless you and your family with all your needs throughout the coming week.

Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1 Peter 3:9

Ghandi lived on less than they do, and he still went to hell without Christ. You're judging their salvation by their works alone, and not by the doctrine they teach and believe.

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees... Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
-Matthew 16:6-12

First, you need to give your caps lock a rest. Your keyboard's gonna' have a heart attack.
Second, that's none of your business, because the Bible says:

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
-Matthew 6:1

Graham is doing all his before men. Since you believe he's a Christian, how much reward do you think he'll get for it?
Third, you are asking Lorraine and I to show you all our personal financial records, which you haven't provided in this letter, nor would you be willing to do, which means you're judging as a hypocrite, and that's what Jesus Christ was rebuking in Mat 7.
And finally, the Graham organization is 501c3 incorporated, which means they don't share their financial records out of charity and honesty; they do it because their secret true creator, the IRS, requires it of them via the contract they signed, meaning they're bound by legal obligation to provide that information to the public.

I'm sorry you got hurt when you read the truth of what Billy Graham really believes. What you do with that information is between you and the Lord Jesus Christ; whether you are saved or not.

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
-Luke 16:15


From Fernando; Nov 7, 2014 (Two email exchanges; topics seperated by dotted line.)
I just saw your video titled "Evolution is a Religion (Part 1)" and I would like to clarify some things for you. Firstly, evolution is just a word. As you pointed out, it simply means change over time. By that definiton most things in our universe evolve. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the popular name of Charles Darwin's theory on the origin of species. When we use the term "Theory of Evolution" we're usually refering to Darwin's theory and not the evolution of things in general.
I'm sure you do. When they start teaching it that way in the textbooks, high schools, and college classrooms, I'll stop saying that evolutionists smuggle in other meanings along with it.
I would say that the textbook you showed at 8:50 on the video says it on slightly different words.
"Does it surprise you that the title of this section is called The Evolution of Stars? If you are like most people, you may think of evolution as something that deals with changes in living things. The definition of evolution, however, can be thought of in simple terms as change over time. Using that definition, many things can be considered to evolve."
-Prentice Hall: Exploring the Universe, Prentice-Hall Inc, 1993, p. 42, ISBN: 0-13-977331-2
That's not helping your argument. That's demonstrating that they DO teach that evolution involves many different concepts, and not just the religious macro evolution you adhere to. In fact, I'll give you another one, and this comes from the leader of the National Center for Science Education:
"To the question 'What does evolution mean?' most people will answer, 'Man evolved from monkeys' or 'molecules to man'... both definitions are much too narrow. Evolution involves far more than just human beings and, for that matter, far more than just living things. The broad definition of evolution is 'a cumulative change through time,' and refers to the fact that the universe has had a history--that if we were able to go back into time, we would find different stars, galaxies, planets and different forms of life on Earth... There is astronomical evolution, geological evolution, and biological evolution... it is relevant to physics and chemistry as well."
-Eugenie C. Scott (Atheist/Evolutionist), Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction, University of California Press, 2004, p. 23, ISBN: 9780520246508
That's an excerpt from: http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/religionevolution.php#2
So I'm simply showing what is being taught. If you don't like that, then perhaps you should join me in helping to get junk like this out of public school textbooks and college classrooms.


The evolution of species and the evolution of the universe both belong to the field or theoretical science. They are simply possible explanations to the things we observe in our universe and they're a dime a dozen. In the case of the big bang, most observations seem to agree with it. It's not a definitive answer but it is the best that science has given us so it should be teached in school as long as students are made aware that it is a theory. I'm sure most textbooks and teachers make that clear.
You're "sure" they make that clear, but you seem to be ignoring the examples I gave where they "teached" the exact opposite of what you're saying. (Either that or you didn't listen to the whole teaching.) You are welcome to explore the depths of all your opinions, but I would prefer to stick with the documented facts. You're being "sure," without the facts, proves my point, that evolutionists live by faith. (i.e. don't bother to find out, just ASSUME it to be true)
I agree that some textbooks need to be reviewed. Some may be outdated or just wrong. I don't get that from your video as you only included a few sentences. But I do know that before discussing any scientific theories public school teachers are supposed to explain what a theory is and make it clear that these are theories.
Once again, the key words "supposed to," are extremely important here for two reasons: 1. Who says they're "supposed to?" I know of only one law in Texas that requires that. So where are you are getting this requirement from for everyone else? 2. "Supposed to," meaning I was right. You first said you were "sure" they did it. Now you're backing off to say they're "supposed to," even though you're from Florida, and your Florida state instructional materials code includes no such thing. (Unlike your assumptions, I've read it myself and checked it out; perhaps you should try doing the same.)
You're making statements you don't know, haven't verified, and aren't making any effort to do so, all the while you're making implications that what your saying is true, when it's not, so now I'm going to put theses in the category of lies, and I don't have time to write out these emails for people who won't be honest. You originally took the time to write me because you believe I'm wrong, and you wanted to "clarify" and help me "understand" your ridiculous assumptions, and you don't even bother to check stuff out first to see if it's true or not; you should be ashamed of yourself.


Big Bang is actually a generic name for a group of theories about the origin of the universe. We don't know what caused the universe to "explode" (begin expanding) but we do know, based on observation, that all matter in the universe is moving away from a single point. That's the common denominator on all big bang theories.
The word 'know' is in reference to knowledge, facts, and truth, but the word 'assumption' means that you apply a particular interpretation that you personally want to believe, but you don't actually know. I wouldn't argue that objects in the universe are moving in particular directions, perhaps it is, but that it is all moving away from a singular point is called an ASSUMPTION, not knowledge. It's an concept that is based on theoretical ideas (i.e. what if this, and what if that). There's a difference between the two words, and you are ASSUMING that it all comes from a singular point, but that's not something you know. However, you believe it's a fact because you presuppose evolution to be true.
And as you so adequately pointed out, even if it were true that they all came from a singular point, that still does not prove the religious Big Bang model.
Perhaps 'understand' would've been a better choice of word. But it's not an assumption. Everywhere we look in the sky we see galaxies moving away from each other. That means that if we where to reverse time
Which first ASSUMES the universe to be billions of years old. Yes, it's an assumption.
we'll see everything getting closer together, so logically at some point on the distant past everything (all the energy-matter) was packed very densely. The idea that it was infinitesimally small is rather outdated and most scientists don't believe that today, but it certainly was very dense and hot.
I'm sorry, but I really do not have time to waste with people I know don't do any research, and just make blanket vague opinions. The Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing is still teaching it as of Nov 8, 2014:
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics is still teaching it as of Nov 8, 2014:
The California Institute of Technology is still teaching it as of Nov 8, 2014:
When you say "most scientists don't believe," and I see two things:
1. It's all based on BELIEF. That's my point, evolution is a religion, and those who believe in it do so by faith.
2. I find it very hard to believe you've spoken with "most scientists" to verify what they "believe." I think what you're doing is looking at what you believe, and ASSUMING that everyone else believes the same thing, which is childish to say the least.
As an evolutionist, you're really setting a terrible example, because all this is demonstrating is that evolutionists assume things in pure faith, and don't bother to go check things out to verify them.
That's as far back as observation can take us.
You've even convinced yourself that you've "observed" the history of the universe. By definition, that's called delusion, and I can't help people with that.
We don't know what caused to expand or what happened before. For that we must rely on our understanding of the laws of physics and math to come up with theories. And in my opnion all theories we've come up so far far miserably short requiriing thinks like dark matter and different laws of physics before the so called big bang in order to work. But we should teach teach them because some of those students (obviously smater than us) will become fascinated with it and eventually come up with a better theory, advancing our understanding of the universe. And if we're to assume that the Christian God exists I think He would be pleased as he was when King Solomon prefered knowledge above everything else He could give him.
No, Solomon asked for wisdom. There's a really big difference. People can have knowledge in lies and false information, but they don't have the wisdom to discern the truth; kinda' like how when people ASSUME things to be true, and can't see (blinded) that they're assuming things to be true without investigation, which Bible considers to be foolishness:

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2Timothy 3:7

The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.
-Proverbs 15:28

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
-1Thessalonians 5:21

So what you're admitting (in case you didn't see it) about the Big Bang, and I appreciate this, is that it is your opinion, and that it's a miserable theory that falls short in the light of scientific disciplines. I have to agree with you. But you continued to point out, that, even though it's pathetic, and it really doesn't work with scientific investigation, it should CONTINUE to be taught, until someone can justify it; and that's called FAITH.
When you have a group of people who continue to teach something imaginary that cannot be proven or justified, in hopes of gaining a following -- that's a religious cult. Thank you very much, you are helping me prove my point.


There are many definitions but I think the main difference between science and religion is that science is supposed to be open minded. New observations and discoveries lead to new theories. This is in part why it is so hard to keep public school textbox up-to-date. Let alone the fact that most high school teachers are not scientists so their own understanding is rather limited.
No, science means knowledge, or knowledge gained by observation and experimentation. Science doesn't have a mind; people have minds. This is where you (and many other evolutionists) make it seem like science is your "god" that has a mind of its own, and verifies facts on it's own, when in reality, evolutionism is a concept you believe outside of science, based on your presuppositions.
That said, I agree that some scientists are very religious about their beliefs. But those are not the ones that come up with new theories and end up making a difference.
What you're saying is partially true, depending on what you mean. Since evolutionism is a religious cult, and nothing useful has come from it, I'd have to agree. However, where I'd have to disagree is concerning peoples' beliefs:
--William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin -- Believed in the Bible and a young earth. I assume you're aware of his accomplishments because if you know anything about physics, they rely on the original works of this man.
--Charles Babbage -- Protestant Christian, believed in the Bible and a young earth. He invented the calculator.
--Johannes Kepler -- believed that God had created the world, and incorporated God's intelligent plan into his work on astronomy.

I could list out hundreds of these examples, and these men are all the minds you would rely on for doing any work in astronomy today, but you arrogantly say "those are not the ones that come up with new theories and end up making a difference." You're wasting my time.


We also know based on background radiation (heat) that the temperature accross the universe is roughly the same. The only explanation for this is incredibly rapid expansion of the universe in the first fraction of a second.
I wouldn't argue the universe has background radiation, but that this is only explained through the religious Big Bang model is an ASSUMPTION, not knowledge. I'm amazed that you wrote this letter with the phrase "I would like to clarify some things for you," but all you've done is give me your opinions and assumptions, which is not only boring to read, it's also a waste of time.
As for the formation of stars, the process is actually pretty well understood.
Assumptions incoming...
So much that we can recreate it in the hydrogen bomb and particle accelerators.
It sounds like you're making bombs (expands rapidly), not creating a sun (collapses rapidly).

The atom bomb is actually made by collapsing it rapid. A sphere of Plutonium is surrounded by explosives. The explosives are detonated at the same time causing the plutoniom to collapse on itself, the nucleus collide and try to fuse but become unstable and breaks down (fissions). The same would work with hydrogen for a fussion bomb except that it's not practical to collapse a gas with explosives so we use a small fission bomb to heat it up instead.
And it's not stable, which was the point I was trying to make.
All of it is still based on the ASSUMPTION that this process would happen naturally in space to create stable suns, or in other words, because we can make an unstable collapse under carefully controlled conditions on a small scale, therefore, we can jump to the conclusion that it will stabilize itself automatically in an uncontrolled, chaotic environment on a large scale long ago and far away in a place and time we cannot observe. If you believe that, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you...


I don't mean to be rude, but your understanding of what you call "basic physics" seems very limited. Basically when two protons (positive hydrogen atoms) collide they fuse and form a Helium atom. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the positive charge of the protons (since two positive charges repell each other).
No arguments so far; both things you have said are true. My understanding of basic physics is limited, and positive charges repel each other. So far so good.
There are two ways to overcome this repulsive force, gravity and heat. Gravity is a little understood (but well observed) force that causes matter to accelerate towarads their center of mass. Given enough mass, you'll have enough gravity to overcome the repulsive force of the protons.
Exactly. And I need to point out the key words "given enough mass," which is the trick most people don't catch. That's call an ASSUMPTION that you take by faith because no one has ever observed this happening in space. And which we have demonstrated on our website how the "basic physics" you're referring to have to be thrown out in order to get this star kick-started.
We observe it everytime we look at the sky. But I'm being sarcastic. Your point is that visual observation alone doesn't tells us much, and you're right. But our knowlege of the laws of gravity and nuclear physics tells that is no only possible but inevitable that stars will form given the right conditions which we know exist.
IF there's enough mass, and IF the chaotic nature of the gases doesn't cause them to separate, and IF we can overcome the heat problems that cause the initial particles to separate, and IF all the right elements appear (which came out of no where because it takes fusion to create them to begin with), and IF they're in the same place, and IF they're there at the same time, and IF the gravity we don't understand will begin to act on them, and IF it can all stabilize, despite the fact that we can't observe any of it in space, then that PROVES stars are born and all came from the Big Bang, so we "observe it everytime we look at the sky."
I don't know of a better example of a "house of cards" then that right there. You would have made a great snake-oil salesman.
Remember that gravity is just a force that causes matter to accelerate towards each, it is the acceleration itself that has effects. Also matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. These are proven facts with practical applications, for example our GPS systems and most space missions would not be possible without this knowledge. We cannot recreate a massive star in a lab experiment (or even get close enough to properly observe it in nature) but we can recreate it on a smaller scale on a particule accelerator (ie. replace "enough mass" with a minuscule mass plus a huge amount of energy that given the energy-matter equivalency is the same thing). This allows us to confirm our theories, which say that stars must form.
And I'll just repeat what I said before:
All of it is still based on the ASSUMPTION that this process would happen naturally in space to create stable suns, or in other words, because we can make an unstable collapse under carefully controlled conditions on a small scale, therefore, we can jump to the conclusion that it will stabilize itself automatically in an uncontrolled, chaotic environment on a large scale long ago and far away in a place and time we cannot observe. (And it's still not proven until you observe it happening in space.)
Thus, if all of your ASSUMPTIONS are true, then you say they "must" form. Why "must" they form? Because after all, stars are here, and you don't have any explanation to give for that other than the Christian God of the Bible formed them, which you absolutely will not accept, so you will accept any other explanation, no matter how absurd and far-fetched it may be, and then put your hope and faith into the next generation to come up with something that sounds better.


You've got fussion. This reaction also releases energy (mostly in the form of heat) which helps accelerate the reaction. Heat and kinetic energy are two forms of the same thing. Heat is electromagnetic energy, when absorved by matter it causes particles to move faster (is transformed into kinetic energy) until it\'s eventually radiated again. A faster moving particle is harder to deflect (basic classical mechanics) so when the paths of two protons intersect with enough kinetic energy they will overcome the repulsive charge of the protons. Once again you've got fussion.
And all this on the ASSUMPTION that you've got enough mass to start it up. It doesn't take a degree in mathematical physics to point out some elementary assumptions you're making. The problem is you've been trained to mentally leap over the assumptions and jump to the conclusions. (i.e. assuming what is not known, or what is impossible to solve) After doing this so long, there are many evolutionists I've read and listened to who won't even be able to see the assumptions they make anymore because they get so blinded by their faith.
We understand the effects of gravity quite well.
After you said: "Gravity is a little understood (but well observed) force that causes matter to accelerate towarads their center of mass." First you said that it's observed, which is beyond obvious since I can drop a pen and watch it happen. But you also stated it is little understood, but then turned around and said it's understood quite well. I don't have time for this.
We also understand nuclear forces pretty well. So the math is not that complicated. I could look up the exact math for you if you like me to, but the mass required is less than the mass of our sun, which is one of the smallest stars in our universe. We also know much more about stars than you imply (and than that high school book also implies). By observing their motions we can estimate their mass (since motion is governed by gravity which is a function of the mass) for example. Using spectrum analysis we can determine their composition. Based on the parallax effect and red shift we can estimate their distance and speed, etc.
The calculation of the mass of stars is based on the ASSUMPTION that stars are like the sun, which we do not know. I'm not going to play around your assumptions all day, I've got work to do.


On the case of the hydrogen bomb we heat the hydrogen (with a fission reaction). On the particle accelartors we simply accelerate it in a magnetic field.
Which won't even exist if you don't have your ASSUMPTION: "given enough mass."
Let's assume for a second that it was just an assumption. They do exist so I guess that makes the assumption true.
Let's assume it's an assumption? You're wasting my time.
You see a gas cloud in space, assume the mass is set for the star to form, and BELIEVE BY FAITH that it happens, and then turn around and tell everyone it's fact and it's "true." That's the definition of deceit, and I don't have time for it.
At the quantum level it all boils down to the same thing. And as Einstein showed us, gravity and accelaration is also the same thing although we don't YET understand it's cause.
Exactly, but you're ASSUMING that "given enough mass," it all falls into place despite the fact we really don't understand it. I'm waiting for the part you're going to start "clarifying some things," because so far, I'm just hearing some religious opinions about what you hope happened long ago and far away.
The same processes leads to the synthesis of all the elements (though requiring more energy).
So you're assuming that "given enough mass" that these elements will collapse on themselves and form a star, and then will develop the very elements first used to make that star to begin with. You do remember that the sun-type fusion (stars) are made of many different elements, right? So explain to me, which came first: The elements to make the star, or the star to make the elements?
Helium came first.
Let's count the assumptions in this paragraph you wrote. This is ASSUMPTION #1 -- you need helium to start the process, so you ASSUME that came from the Big Bang, but you don't know because that's completely unverifiable.
A helium atom is just a proton, which is made of 3 quarks. My understanding on this topic is rather limited, but the current theory is that before expansion began (before the big bang or during it's first tiny fraction of a second)
ASSUMPTION #2 -- The "dot" of the Big Bang.
it was so dense and hot that protons wouldn't form,
ASSUMPTION #3 -- You said during it's first "tiny fraction of a second" meaning that before the explosion, there was no time, meaning that hotness couldn't even exist.
once expantion began and it gets cold enough the quarks form protons.
ASSUMPTION #4 -- The hotness that couldn't exist in time to be hot got cold.
This (quantum mechanics) is a complex, highly mathematical theory, I can only grasp the basics of. But I can tell you some of it has been confirmed in experiments and there's even some practical applications based on it (nuclear energy/atom bomb, etc). It's imcomplete, but we're making lots of progress lately.
ASSUMPTION #5 -- Don't understand it that well, but you know it definitely proves the religious Big Bang model.
Once we got hydrogen we have all we need to form stars, all the other elements where synthesized in stars.
ASSUMPTION #6 -- Jumping to the conclusion, *poof* there are stars.
You live in Florida right? Might I interest you in some snow-avalanche insurance?


When protons collide they will fuse. If the resulting element is stable we'll get a more massive element, if it's not it will break down into less massive elements (fission). The fact that we don't have the means to synthesize all the elements doesn't mean that it can't happen in the universe.
But you ASSUME that it did. And you're helping me prove my point, that evolutionists presuppose their theory BEFORE they look at evidence. And, most evolutionists have never considered the following:
If scientists could one day synthesize all the elements in a lab, that doesn't prove that it happened that way in nature. If a bunch of intelligent scientists get together and recreate all the elements, the only thing that will prove is that it takes intelligence to make elements, which doesn't help the religious presuppositions of evolution.
You're right, it is an assumption. But it's based on our deep understanding of the laws of physics.
Listen to what you're saying: "Yes, it's an assumption, BUT we're really smart guys, so it's the equivalent of truth." How am I supposed to help someone like that? That's the kind of response you hear from religious cults, but it's evolutionism so I guess that makes sense.
There's a much less probable possibily that they where created as they are but that possibility does not belong in the realm of science because we'll never be able to prove it or observe it.
But when I ask you for proof and observation for your religious Big Bang model, you tell me you don't have it, yet, you still believe in it by faith, and that doesn't belong in the realm of science, I agree.
Science is about taking the clues left by the creator (if there is one) and trying to make sense of the world around us and use that knowledge for the benefit of our fellow human beings. Though sometimes it may be used to inflict pain and suffering on other but sadly that's human nature.
Well, you can fool everyone else into thinking that you're looking for evidence of God, but I know better because God's Word says you aren't looking at all.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
-Romans 1:19-22

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a sheriff; he can't find what he's purposefully trying to hide from.


In fact the math shows us that it can. A century ago we couldn't even synthesize helium! Also it is not true that we cannot synthesize anything heavier than iron. We have synthesize many of the hevier elements. Take plutonium for example.
But synthesizing past iron breaks down too quickly. Only iron has become stable, which is why I said you can't get past iron with fusion. If they could, then there should be some rich scientists out there making their own gold.
Plutonium-239. Way hevier than iron and it's has a half life of 24000 years. Man made. There's a very high number of combinations of fussion/fission reaction that can lead to a very high number of isotopes of elements. I'm not sure if there is a "mathematical formula" to synthesize gold know by man but I'm sure such formula exists. Actually making it is another thing as the amount of energy required to fuse them increases exponentially with the mass, so it gets really hard but not impossible.
And it's unstable. That was my point. I'm having to repeat myself over and over, so this is my last letter to you on this subject.
It also doesn't work like that, it would cost a lot more to make an element that it's actual value, even if the element is gold. It tooks us billions on dollars to produce a few grams of Plutonium during WWII plutonium is generated on a chain reaction (easier to make), most of that cost was enriching it (purifyng the fissile isotope). Fusing heavier/more stable elements takes a lot more energy so it's more costly. The ones we have synthesized we've done in very small quantities at a huge cost.
And they're all unstable, which means we've got a lot more pressing matters to be spending billions of dollars on than creating materials that are going to kill millions of people and destroy the planet we live on.


As for the evolution of species violating the laws of thermodynamics, this is not quite true. Only if you ignore the process of natural selection (which in a certain way makes biological life forms and open system within the closed system that is our universe) and the fact that biological life forms are only temporary organisations. In the end entropy will prevail and all life in the universe will become extinct as far as we know.
I'm surprised you say the universe is a closed system because I've listened to multiple professors of evolutionary biology say that the universe is an open system. (And they are basing that on faith only because no one has demonstrated an energy source outside the universe.)
And the entire universe will be destroyed, and it will happen with a big bang, only not in the way you think it will:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise [i.e. big bang], and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
-2 Peter 3:10

Then why the argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics since it applies to closed systems?
It doesn't seem you were considering the presentation I gave very carefully because that's why I gave the example of the car on fire. Applying energy is destructive unless there's already a complex mechanism in place to harness the energy in a particular way, which means just simply adding energy to a closed system is destructive. (I stated that in the presentation.) Evolutionists, however, believe that these complex mechanisms just popped out of the mud, which is based on more assumptions and faith.


Finally I would like to ask, would you be opposed to creationism being thought in public schools?
Based on the sentences you wrote after this, I don't think you're interested in my answer, but I'll answer it anyway.
It depends on what you mean, because there's a more important question that has to be answered first: Should we have a public school system paid for by tax dollars? In this country, I believe all schools should be private, and privately paid for by the parents of the community in which they live.
Then, IF we should have a tax-funded school system, what should be taught? Well, that's up to the parents that pay for them, because this gets into a deeper issue: Who has the authority to teach children? Is the state or the parents?
If the state is the ultimate authority (that's called socialism) then your question would have more merit, because they would have to find one way of teaching that would appease everyone. However, if the parents are the ultimate authority over their children (that's called capitalism) then each community would decide what to teach based on the personal parental preferences within that community, and then each system of teaching could compete in the open market, and those who taught their children the best education with the best values would win out the job market.
So would I be opposed to creationism being taught in public schools... I can't agree to a tax-funded public school system at all, so the question's really irrelevant. However, if there is a tax-funded public school system (1st through 12th grade), then we shouldn't teach origins at all because the topic of origins is irrelevant when learning a profession. (Outside of a religious studies major.)
Interesting, I would think that a Christian would lean more to the socialist end of the spectrum since Jesus teachings where more socialist and the early Church was a socialist institution as documented in the Book of Acts. I've seen preachers of many denominations critize capitalism as the worship of mamon...
There are people that worship cows too, but that doesn't mean cows can't be used without worshiping them. Christ even used money (which I won't bother to quote you since I'm sure you don't care anyway). I just don't have time to address vague blanket statements like "Jesus teachings were more socialist." You have repeatedly just made a ton of vague statements you can't back up, and just assume to be true, and I don't have anymore time for someone like that.
Personally I think there must be a balance in every society and I see capitalism as a necessary evil. It is necessary because it works but it must be kept in check or we'll end up with an oligarchy where the rich prospers and the poor starves. Without a public school system those who can't afford an education will be left behind.
You've got to be kidding me. You really think the public education system is free don't you? Nobody pays for it, you just sign up and go? LOL! What do you think the public education system runs on -- rainbows and hopeful dreams?
I'd be willing to explain to you how this works, but I'm not going to waste my time with someone who doesn't bother to back up what he says with real research, and just assumes everything to be true. It'd just be wasted effort.


If you're honest I guess the answer would be no. But that would be hypocritical because the arguments that you make about evolution (either false or ignorantly) can all be made about creationism, even more so when you base your creationism on the Bible. For example you base your calculation of the age of the universe on the Bible.
My belief about the age of the earth is based on historical documentation, and your belief about the age of the earth is based on pure assumption (opinion), and you're claiming the arguments are the same? Were you kidding? Please feel free to take that kind of argument into a court of law (where they examine evidence) and watch how fast you get laughed at.
If someone walks in with documentation (historical evidence), and someone else walks in with a speculative religious opinion, obviously, the merit goes to the one who has documentation. It's kinda' like how you started out this email with your opinions, claiming that evolution's not taught in the way I said it was taught, even though I provided documentation to back up what I said -- that's why what I'm saying has more merit than what you're saying; I can back up what I'm talking about.
At this point, most evolutionists bring up radiometric dating, but we've already demonstrated the fallacies of that parlor trick.
Creationism is based on the ASSUMPTION that the Bible is the written word of God and therefore historical documentation. You'll ignore all the discrepancies and contradiction on the Bible and find ways to reconcile them because they're blinded by their faith.
It is a presupposition, that is correct. I take it by faith that it is true. And we might start seeing some honest evolutionists appear if they would start admitting their assumed religious presuppositions as well.
And there are not discrepancies or contradictions in the King James Bible, and I have covered many of those accusations on out website:
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles.php#Contradictions -- We're going to be adding many more to this list in the future.


But how do you explain the discrepancies between the different genealogies on it? Put into scale they're greater in magnitude than the difference in science's estimates. The genealogies in the Bible are different than EVOLUTIONISTS' estimates, not "science's" estimates. You're mixing up your religion with science, as if evolution were part of science. Evolution is a religious worldview that some people, like yourself, choose to believe in.
I don't know which discrepancies you're referring to, so I'm not going to assume what specifically you're talking about.
There are several genealogies on Genesis and the one of the other so called books of Moses (I believe there is one on either Leviticus or Deuterony or perhaps more than one besides the one in Genesis plus two in the new testament) and they overlap but there are discrepancies.
In James there's a reference to the ascention of Moses. Most Christians for over a millenia have agreed that the book of the ascencion of Moses is apociphal and that Moses didn't ascend to heaven. But the Epistle of James is an inspired work but how can God make the mistake of referencing an apocriphal work?
The scene at the Garden of Gethsemane on the gospels also alludes to the ascension of Moses symbolically when it places Jesus (which will ascend to heaven) between Eliah (which ascended to heaven) and Moses. This is because the Christians of the 1st century (the authors of the Golpels) believed the book of the ascension of Moses to be holy scripture. It was in medieval times that the Catholic Church declared the book to be apocriphal.
Did Judas (the traitor) hung himself? Or did he tripped and busted open? Or was it both? He hung himself and then busted open when they cut him down?
I'm not opposed to the possibility of a creator. I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic school where I was thought that scripture and science doesn't necessarily conflict. In my teens I converted to Protestantism and attended Churches of several denominations. I noticed that every protestant denomination has a different set of belief so I spoke to a preacher about it. I mean, how do I know that I'm in the right church? He suggested I read the Bible with an open heart, that the answer was there. And it was! Besides all the discrepancies (which Christians are very good a reconciling) I discovered a very moody God. For about 4000 he was a vengeful, bloody God. Inconsistent. Manipulable (ie. when he was about to kill the Israelites Moses told him something like: 'but Lord, if you kills us then the other nations will say: what kind of god is he, he brought them out of Egypt to kill them.', so God said something like: 'You're right, I'll just have you walk 40 years in the desert'). Then for the last 2000 years he's a God of love, but one that will still kill you if you lie about your income as documented in the Book of Acts (when he killed the couple that lied about how much they sold their property for to avoid giving their money to the early --socialist-- church).

- 1. You're making vague statements again, just saying "there are discrepancies." I don't have time for it.
- 2. The apocrypha has never been part of Scripture. That's Catholic junk, which discuss here:
- 3. We've already covered issues about Judas here:
You could find these by just doing key word searches on our website, but I know you're not interested in answering them anyway.
- 4. I'm not Catholic. Catholicism is a pagan religion that has nothing to do with Christian doctrine.
I'm also not a "protestant" because I don't protest the Catholic church, it was never part of Christianity from its inception in 326 A.D.
- 5. There are contradictions in new-age versions of the bible, which the Catholics use, and we discuss that here:
There are no contradictions in the King James Bible.
- 6. It's interesting that you're writing-style has changed when discussing this topic. You can tell how much you hate the Christian God of the Bible, which pretty much explains why you love evolution so much.

It got worse when I started researching Church history all the way back to the Hebrew people and discovered that the stories of Genesis (creation, the fall, the flood, etc) are offshoots of more ancient Summerian stories. Or when I see that as other civilizations came in contact with the Jewish people elements of their belief appear on the Bible (notice any similarities between Hercules and Samsom) or how the visions of ezekiel bring to mind elements of Hindu and Persian mythologies?
No, I actually find that to be perfectly logical. That's exactly what I would do if I were Satan; I would start up a bunch of other stories that can all be proven to be mythical, make them sound exactly like God's Word, and then people will just write off the truth as pagan myth. It's really brilliant strategy.

Better documented is the story of the early Church. For most of the first 3 centuries of the Christian Era we had as many sects as we have denominations today. But their beliefs varied more widely. For some Jesus was God, for others a demigod, or a prophet, or a man that was possesed by God at times. On the 4th century Emperor Constantine decided what you would believe today. The aspect of christianity that where more inline with the ancient greco-roman religion and the eastern "mistery religions" that had taken hold on the empire where chosen as orthodoxy and all other christians where exterminated.
Again, I'm not Catholic, and you have paganism mixed up with Christianity. Although, I wouldn't count that as completely your fault since that was your first education, and so thus you still believe in some of the lies you were told; and that has happened to countless people unfortunately. But that's why we exist, to help people understand those things, but I can only share it with people wanting to listen and learn.

I can go on forever. These are the things that led me to believe that if there is a creator it is not the Christian God. Our universe needs to be so fine-tuned for even matter to exists that scientific theories need to come up with infinite universes for ours to emerge by change so a creator is as good a theory. But it'll have to be a creator that fine-tuned the universe and set it in motion and then let it run it's course through the laws of physics that he tuned so well, no a personal, intervening God.
I'm sure you can go on forever because no amount of evidence will ever deter you from your current religious beliefs in evolution, and you won't ever turn from that until you recognize that your guilty of breaking God's Laws are facing eternal sentencing for your crimes.
  • Have you ever told a lie?
    All it takes is one lie, and you're a liar. (Exd 20:16)
  • Have you ever stolen?
    All it takes is one theft, and you're a theif. (Exd 20:15)
  • Have you ever looked at someone with sexual lust?
    All it takes is one time, and you're an adulterer. (Exd 20:14, Mat 5:28)
  • Have you ever used God's name in vain?
    All it takes is one misused word, and you're a blasphemer. (Exd 20:7)

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
-Romans 3:10

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23

You are guilty of breaking God's laws. (These are only 4 of the 10 commandments.) All of us are going to die one day, and not one of us is guaranteed one second on this earth. It's possible you could die before you finish reading this section. If you are judged today by the standards of God's Word, you will suffer the full eternal penalty for your crimes.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
-Hebrews 9:27

You are already guilty before the judgment comes, and you cannot run, so you have only two options:
1. Pay the penalty yourself for all eternity.
2. Get someone else to pay it for you.
And the Christian God of the Bible did make a way to get someone else to pay it for you, but that's not something I think you'd be interested in.


Besides the fact that science only claims to have theories and estimates and the Bible c
You'll have to introduce me to this "Mr. Science" you keep referring to because I've never met him. (i.e. That's called personification; giving human qualities to in an inanimate object or abstract concept.) You keep saying "science claims," and "science's estimates," as if it is a person, but you are the one putting interpretations on the facts, since you claim to "know" certain things, and I can't figure out why you keep referring to "science" as if it's some mysterious religious figure hiding by a curtain.
As for "Bible c," I don't know about "a" and "b" so I can't help you with that one.
By science I mean scientists, but I'm sure you knew that as it's common usage in the english language (and most languages have a similar usage). Your website must have truncated my email. I was saying that the Bible claims to have absolute truth.
There's a 10,000 character limit in emailing from the website. And yes, the Bible does have absolute truth, whereas an atheistic/evolutionary worldview has no justification for knowledge, logic, science, or anything else for that matter, which we discuss here:
If you want more help understanding these issues, you're welcome to browse our website, but until you're willing to get out of the forest of assumptions, I can't do anymore to help you. Have a wonderful day. :D


From Ryan; June 12, 2014
I just came across your Basilosaurus article, and having been trained as a biologist some 20 years ago at a Luthern Christian College called Augustana in Camrose Alberta. I first read the new testament 3 times in High School having attended a Catholic School, and was very much a believer. By college, I read the old and new testaments twice again. I wanted to send you a little note, because your line of thinking is a little disturbing.
Thanks for taking the time to read over some of our material. Being somewhat versed in the Bible, I'm sure you understand that believing in Jesus Christ does not automatically mean you repented and were saved. (i.e. Going to a church, Lutheran college, and reading a bible does not make you a Christian.) Even Satan himself believes in Jesus Christ, so acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Son of God is only one part of the process, and there are many false converts floating around all over the place, so when you give me your background, it only tells me what you have experienced, not what you really believe.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. We can't possibly have all the answers, we haven't been around for more than a half million years. The earth is billions of years old.
I never said "science has all the answers." That statement confused me at first because I couldn't quite figure out why you wrote that, since I never said, nor even implied "science has all the answers." As I kept reading, I figured it out. Once I saw you talk about millions and billions of years, now I understand that you're equating "science" automatically to mean "evolution" as if the two terms interchangeably mean the same thing. (i.e. "Evolution doesn't claim to have all the answers.") Evolution is not part of science, no matter how much you may want to believe it.

Besides, it's an infinite universe by all observations so far, we as a species will likely never have all the answers.
You're telling me mankind has OBSERVED infinite space? Uh... okay. We can't see the end, therefore, there isn't one. Try that in a debate and see how far you get.

I'm not even certain we'll leave the solar system (except our robots and whatnot). All we have is a bunch of stuff that we find, and then come up with possible answers as to why they exist.
And those answers are based on your presupposition. I understand all this. Are we going to discuss basilosaurus?

The key being that we're trying to compare living systems and extrapolate what the creatures whose bones we now have, were like. There is no conspiracy to cover up any thing religious, we simply want to explain what we can. A bible thumper friend once told me that science would try to cover up the fact that a god exists should any proof arise. That is so far from the minds of most scientists, it\'s ridiculous. If there is a god, we would want to understand what he is, how he created the universe and understand everything about that. Where is heaven, is it another dimension, or is it something else entirely.
As a college graduate, I'm sure you recognize what you just did was heavily imply that I am making the same argument as this other person you deemed a "bible thumper," because you just gave ME your response to HIS argument. I didn't make that argument. So are you talking to me, or are you talking to him? I can't tell. (Are you going to talk about basilosaurus?)

You start out by saying that scientist can't prove anything about the bones other than "it died". This is absolutely correct, but no scientist would ever say they proved anything. Science doesn't have proofs, math does.
Since you believe evolution is scientific, that means you just stated that there's no proof for evolution. Thank you for being honest about that.

Science has hypothesis, theories, etc... However, you're saying that bones are not evidence of anything, and that's incorrect. We can tell a lot from bones. The teeth an animal has determines its diet.
Here's what scientists do: They see sharp teeth and conclude meat-eater. They see flat teeth and conclude plant-eater. This exactly how it's done, no more, no less. A short document from the American Museum of Natural History:
"If the skull has powerful jaws and long, sharp teeth, then the dinosaur was probably a meat-eater, a carnivore."
-American Museum of Natural History, "What Teeth Tell Us," retrieved June 12, 2014, [www.amnh.org/content/download/1915/25369/file/dino_07_teeth.pdf]
Pandas have powerful jaws and sharp teeth and they eat plants. Fruit bats have sharp teeth and they eat fruit. So what I said was correct, that the bones are not evidence of these things, but you believe they are by faith because you first believe that evolution has taken place, so you conclude that the dead animals will be exactly like the ones today. (Which doesn't make sense because you believe evolution has changed things so much, but then turn around and believe nothing could be different from what you see today [uniformitarianism] -- evolutionists argue on both sides of their mouths.)

The size and location of the bones determines muscle mass and general appearance.
I would probably concur (depending on what you're talking about) that bone size can help determine muscle mass and general shape, but that has nothing to do with evolution. The context in which I made that statement was talking about evolution, not talking about real science. This is the first factual statement you've made thus far concerning your evidence, and it doesn't give any help to evolution.

We can assume that since cameras were invented, no giant beasts have magically appeared, that they do not magically spring into existence.
I have no clue what point you're trying to make. I am at a loss for how that statement fits in to the rest of your context.

When I compare the exact same type of creatures over multiple finds, I can also determine some ranges for age, size, health.
A uniformitarian assumption is looking at something today, and ASSUMING that it was the same in the past. Again, this is believed by evolutionists via faith, not by scientific investigation. For example, take your "health" statement; that concerns their diet. The diet type is first ASSUMED (not evidenced) by the teeth, which I demonstrated earlier is logically and scientifically fallacious. Then, they compare that diet with the fossil foliage and/or animals that they find near the fossil, but as I pointed out already on our website, you don't even know WHERE it died, you only know where it ended up getting buried. Just because you dig up a fossil, doesn't mean it died there; that's a complete assumption you take by faith, and thus, you are confusing reality with what you ASSUME to be true in your imagination. (i.e. you believe your imagination is reality)

If the bone has multiple healed fractures, I can extrapolate that it had seen violence, but healed. This is uncommon in predator species. The other thing we can do is compare with current living species, and see the differences and similarities. It's a lot of work, and it takes years if not decades to really understand, but we can learn a lot. And just as I pointed out earlier, evolutionists claim on the one hand that things have changed drastically over time, but then turn around and ASSUME a uniformitarian belief that everything millions of years ago works exactly the same as it does today.
Are you able to prove that all processes of biology, geology, physics, etc, have NOT changed over the course of millions and billions of years? Of course you can't, because you said earlier that you have no proof of anything your talking about.

As far as evidence of evolution, absolutely they are. They aren't proof, proof means it's without the possibility of being wrong, but there is no such thing in science. You're projecting that onto science, not the other way around. Every physical and non-physical object is evidence of something. So this simply isn't a valid argument.
So everything you believe right now could be wrong? Everything that you claim is "evidence for evolution" could be completely wrong? Yet, you're making claims to knowledge as if you know something to be true and factual, yet you state here that the possibility exists that you have no knowledge of anything. This is hopeless circular reasoning. You hypocritically state that I'm "wrong" about these topics, but you have no basis with which to make that claim because you have no idea if you're right or not; you just believe by faith that you are right, and then write me a letter attempting to preach your religious ideas to me.

When it comes to the Basilosaurus, you had some issues with the vestigial hind limbs. You ridiculed this explaining that the vestigial limbs could be used as "claspers". Claspers do serve this purpose in sharks, rays, and some other cartilaginous fish. If this is the case in whales, which the science doesn't seem to support at this time, it wouldn't be unlike the bones in our inner ear or our larynx. But you have plenty of vestigial organs in you right now. Your tonsils no longer serve a purpose, neither do your wisdom teeth. Your appendix, a remnant of a vegetarian diet only causes trouble in modern man. Finally, your tail serves no purpose, but the bones are still there, albeit small. Occasionally, these vestigial traits manifest, as much of our DNA is often simply turned off. I find it a little odd seeing a little baby wiggling it's vestigial tail that never received the right encoding to stay turned off.
You don't seem to understand that I didn't say specifically that they were claspers. I do believe that, but I didn't make that statement. That was a quotation. Did you bother looking at the reference? That was said by Phillip Gringrich, evolutionary scientist and discoverer of the pakicetus fossil, who is considered an expert on the subject in evolutionary circles. This is why my article shook you up so much that you felt you had to write me all this to justify yourself. I quoted directly from evolutionary biologists that you ought to respect, and that's what upsets you because your religious foundation was shaken.

You didn't bother to define what you mean by "vestigial." (This is a very common oversight by evolutionists.) Vestigial basically means you lost it through evolutionary development and don't need it anymore.
People who have their tonsils taken out are more susceptible to multiple diseases. This is well-known today.
There are still some people in the world today that use their wisdom teeth, and some others don't have them removed at all without problems. However, even if that weren't the case, it still wouldn't prove any evolutionary relationship.
(Read "Why Do We Have Wisdom Teeth?" at creationliberty.com for more details.)
People who have their appendix removed are more susceptible to multiple diseases. This is also well-known today.
There are nine muscles that attach to the tailbone, without which you can't go to bathroom properly.
And then, the most absurd of all, is that you allude to a vestigial tail in babies in the womb, which implies the ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP), which is the baby growing in the womb having gills and a tail like a fish. This was proven wrong in 1874, and here you are still believing it, and I'm sure you have taught it to others.
(Read "Seeds of Evolution" at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Listen, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. Just because you can remove certain parts of your body and live, doesn't mean you don't need those parts. You can live without both your eyes, legs, and arms, but that doesn't mean you don't need them.
However, you are saying they "serve no purpose," and it should be shameful to you, as a college graduate with 20 years experience in biology, that I, as an average layman, would have to correct you on this topic. (A little research goes a long way.) What you are actually telling people by claiming "vestigial structures," is an ASSUMPTION of your evolution faith (presupposed before evidence) that they don't have any function, and that they were connections to monkeys or fish in the past. You are welcome to any religious idea you please, but I just don't have as much faith as you do in something that silly.

So although it's entirely possible that wales use their vestigial limbs for copulation, by no means is that any proof that scientists are wrong about evolution. You can call it evidence though.
There it is -- "scientists are wrong about evolution," which means I was right at the beginning. You are heavily implying that you have to believe in evolution in order to be a scientist, or that evolution even has anything to do with real science, and that's the typical elitist attitude I see in emails like this, from those who are zealously blinded by their faith. All I've read in this letter so far is a bunch of religious assumptions that's coming out of your very creative imagination.

The further down in your page, you're implying that we're hiding the fact that a beached orca not being this mammalian ancestor. I can't say for certain from the picture, but it definitely looks like a killer whale that has undergone some putrefaction. This is a part of a standard body decomposition, and you should google it when it comes into play with larger whales when they beach. They explode, there are videos, it's quite awesome!
I've seen them. You ASSUME that I haven't. (You've been thoroughly trained to rely on your assumptions.) If you want to believe that's an orca, you enjoy yourself, but all your giving is opinion, while I and many others will disagree with you. (i.e. Your opinion is not evidence for evolution.)

Regardless, you imply that there is some conspiracy that we don't want this animal to exist because it would disprove evolution. That's absurd. As scientists, one of the most important things to us is the discovery of new species, and understanding how those species fit into the ecosystem.
And you just proved my point. Go back and read what you just wrote: "the discovery of a NEW species" -- I never said it was new. I said it looks very much like the creature evolutionists say is extinct, but even if it was video taped to be alive today, you would write it off as a "NEW" species, because after all, your religion says it's extinct, so there's no way it could still be alive today, thus if an evolution-labeled "extinct" creature is found alive, you will never acknowledge the truth, nor ever be able to see it because your presupposition blinds you.

Thank you for your assistance in demonstrating the assumptions and faith evolutionists have in their religion. Have a wonderful day. :D

A few hours later, Ryan sent his response...

Clearly my message was a waste, I came to you hat in hand, and simply wanted you to not take a role of attack against science.
Again, I didn't attack science. I attacked evolution, which means I was right from the start, you use "science" and "evolution" interchangeably, this comment also tells me that you're now doing it deceptively. Since we're at a point where I have to keep repeating myself, I can't continue to respond to your letters.

Instead, you show that you read or understand what I wrote, and ignore any concepts that do not align with your narrative.
So I explained, defined, and backed up everything I said with examples, references, and quotations, and that means I didn't read or understand your letter? I'm sorry you're hurt that your religion is based on imagination, but I really don't have time for whining. I've got work to do, and you're wasting my time. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care what you want to believe, but believing doesn't make your imagination become reality, and you're certainly not going to get help from me to justify your beliefs.

I have no faith in evolution, as I stated, we use the state of the art science to theorize what COULD be the truth. You're attacking someone simply trying to explain why the bones are there, nothing more. Considering we've used the same science to get to the moon, mars, and create satellites, I'd say we have a pretty good idea of what we're doing.
Hahahaha! Explain to me how the monkey to man model of evolution helped us get to the moon. I'd love to hear that. I'm not going to respond to you any further ('cause this is a waste of my time), but if you will send me an explanation, I'd love to read what you have to say on that.
You can shout out that you don't have faith in evolution 'til your blue in the face, and it still won't make it true. I'm sorry, but truth isn't determined by your religious opinions.

Now, I haven't attacked your religion, or your beliefs. I actually went to great lengths to ensure that I wasn't inflammatory. I even offered to help if you had any questions about science.
You demonstrated that you didn't even have a basic understanding of organs and their functions. On top of that, when you are using some arguments that were proven wrong 140 years ago, why would you think I would come to you for questions about this subject? That boggles me.

You in turn chose to attack me personally.
Just because you were hurt that I pointed out the imagination and fantasy involved in the evolutionary religion does not mean I attacked your personal character. The only thing I said about you personally was that you should be ashamed as someone who has studied in biology for 20 years, that a layman (and one who has no understanding, according to you) has to correct you on basic organ function. This most likely embarrassed you, and thus, you felt personally attacked -- well, I'm sorry you felt that way, but I'm going to tell you the truth, despite how you feel.

You claim to be Christian, though you act in direct opposition to what he taught. The next time you read the bible, please, for your own sake, stop trying to focus on how you can oppress people with the rule in the book; instead think of why Jesus was a great man, and what his teachings mean. Love your neighbour Christopher, even if your neighbour is a gay man.
Are you claiming to be gay? I don't understand why you added that note.

Saying you are saved and believing you are saved is irrelevant. It's your actions that matter, and your actions are not Christian.
I love you enough to tell you the truth, and the love of the truth only comes from the Lord Jesus Christ. (2Th 2:10) The truth is that you believe in a foolish religion based on creative imagination, and the main reason for it is because you don't want an all-powerful God to be a judge over your life.

Here's the truth you don't want to hear:
Have you ever told a lie? -- All it takes is one lie, and you're a liar. (Exd 20:16)
Have you ever stolen? -- All it takes is one theft, and you're a theif. (Exd 20:15)
Have you ever looked at someone with sexual lust? -- All it takes is one time, and you're an adulterer. (Exd 20:14, Mat 5:28)
Have you ever used God's name in vain? -- All it takes is one misused word, and you're a blasphemer. (Exd 20:7)

The Bible says:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
-Romans 3:10

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
-Hebrews 9:27

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
-Luke 13:3

The Jesus Christ you're referring to says that if you don't repent, then you will pay an eternal penalty in hell. I love you enough to tell you the truth, and if no one else is telling you this truth, then they don't love you at all. If you think Christianity means that you get to feel rainbows and happiness all the time, then you have believed a lie of new-age churchianity that is a works-based false doctrine, and I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would open your eyes to the truth.

Note: He never sent me an explanation of how chimp to human evolution got us to the moon. :(


From Oliver; Jan 6, 2014
No educated evolutionist ever states that man came from Monkeys, not even the Evil one Darwin. Man and Monkeys came from a common ancestor in the world of evolution. You keep trying to sell people this idea and it just ain't so.
So your argument says that if anyone who says man came from monkeys, apes, gorillas, or chimpanzees is automatically unlearned (ignorant) on the subject. Without including your own personal explanation of where man came from, you have made an "Ad hominem" logical fallacy, which is nothing more than name-calling without providing factual information. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start out telling us all, in your own words, where man came from?
Man was created by God, the God of Christ, in a process and systematic way. Study Miller Experiment, making Amino acids, Building blocks of life, from the dust of the earth Millions and Billions of years ago. If man came from ape apes in evolution would no longer exist.
Okay, so you referenced to the Bible, but then turned around and referenced to Miller-Urey (a completely failed experiment), which is deceitful because you don't come out and directly say that you believe that man evolved through many different forms from an amoeba. Now we have a direct contradiction because you can't believe both according to what Jesus Christ tells us. We covered the Miller-Urey experiment here: http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/incredibledna.php#dna5

God has a plan for all things, he does not just make Spontaneous Generation. God uses a system and has for us as well as all the other life on Earth. That God used a system called Change Over Time or evolution does not reduce his control or command of life, it simply fits his methods.
I have no doubt you believe in a "god," but it's not the Christian God of the Bible. That's pretty clear based on what you've already told me. You're making a logically fallacious argument called "Conflation," in which you are using a term ("god"), and assuming that the definition of the god you serve, and the definition of the Christian God of the Bible, are one and the same, without acknowledging the differences between them.
In part 2 of our seminar on "Evolution is a Religion," I cover the problems with someone attempting to call themselves a "Christian" when they believe in religious evolutionary concepts. We have to define the two positions clearly, so as to alleviate any confusion on the labels "God" or "Jesus" being used in a false context by those who don't really believe on Him. (i.e. they claim to believe on Him, but in their hearts they don't - Mat 15:8)

You try to limit him with time 6 7 days, what is a day to God?
He states it clear as day in Exodus 20:8-11, as I indicate in the above seminar link, and the real problem is that you are limiting God to your preconceived geologic column. I know you'll take offense to this, but I am literally laughing to myself right now, because you believe in a "god" who cannot create the universe in six days, can't be honest with us about it, and can't explain it to us in a simple manner so that anyone can read it and understand it. Take 15 minutes and watch some of the video link above because I've covered those points.

Where did other people come from if Adam and Eve were all there was?
Is that a serious question? I would highly recommend calling up your parents and ask them to have a talk with you about the birds and the bees.
You belittle yourself with this childish remark, adding to the question are you the serious one answering questions. Other people as in Cain and Able went to another land to take wives. More translation problems Adam meaning male not one man, Eve meaning female not one woman. The answers are there
If you are upset that the answer I gave you was fit for a child, then it would be a good idea not to ask childish questions. If you don't communicate properly, no one is going to know what you're talking about. Since you're going to deteriorate into name-calling, this will have to be my last response to you because I don't have time to waste with... how did you put it... ah, yes... childish remarks. ;D

Now, I agree with you that the answers are there, and if you would look for them, you'd find them, but I don't believe for a second that you want them. You have not come to me in any manner that indicates at all that you want an answer; you just want to scoff. I'll answer you in this last response, but that's all I'm going to give you because I don't have time to waste with scoffers.
When you say Cain and Able went to another land to take wives: First of all, Able didn't go to another land. He's dead at that point. Secondly, Cain did go to another land, but he didn't go there and find a wife. Read it carefully:

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
-Gen 4:16-17

The phrase "knew his wife" means he was doing the thing we mentioned earlier with the birds and the bees. It doesn't say he went into Nod and FOUND his wife there; it says he knew her and she conceived. As shocking as this may sound, picking up the Bible to read it goes a long way in helping one understand it.

God created Heaven and Earth, if he used a process so be it. 6 days 6 min 6 years 6 billion centuries what does it matter, the basic truth is God did it in his time and his way.
It might not matter to you, because you don't really believe in the Christian God of the Bible. (That's obvious.) However, it is important for many Scriptural reasons I'm sure you don't care about so I'm not going to waste my time explaining them.

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
-John 5:46-47

I agree the Answers are in Genesis, it is the interpretations we seem to disagree on.
You capitalized "Answers," which leads me to think that you think I'm with AiG, or endorse them somehow. We do not associate with Ken Ham's ministry, so if you want to talk with them, you'll need to contact them.
So far, you have not provided any answers from Genesis; you've only posed questions, made assumptions, and written your opinions. Normally, if I have a Bible discussion with someone, I expect to see the Bible somewhere. :D

What most I do to inherit the Kingdom of God? Believe on me, I am the Son of God, not tear ideas down. Not follow the 10 commandments though they are good. Not do good deeds for by works no one enter heaven. And certainly not worry about poor translations.
I'm not sure what this is. Is it some of sort of new-age self-talk? I'm not even sure that you speak English as a first language, which is fine, but I can't understand these sentence fragments.

My point is God and Science do not conflict and I am not going to Hell for my belief. Expand energies on telling others the truth God, Jesus is love Believe and be saved period.
God and science don't conflict? That depends on what you mean. God creating the world goes outside the laws of science. He can bend them at His Will.
If you're saying that observations in nature don't conflict with the Bible, I would agree, but the observations in nature do conflict with your religion. (i.e. evolution) Evolution isn't part of science, and that's what you're not understanding. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but the god you serve, and the God I serve, are obviously two different things.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
-Mat 15:8-9

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23

As far as "believe and be saved period," you'd better research that one out completely before you fall into a new-age trap. I believe the Bible teaches Salvation is by grace through faith, not of works, but there is an important component you're missing.
(Read "Is Repentance Necessary?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Oh and exactly where does it say "Judge not lest ye be judged, except for Christopher Johnson."
And this is what I'm talking about when I'm suggesting you actually pick up the Bible and read it. The people who say "don't judge me" (like what you're doing right now) use that as a quick, cop-out phrase when they don't want to hear the truth of God's Word.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1 Corinthians 2:14-15

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

So your Biblical interpretation of Mat 7:1 is incorrect (Mat 7 is talking about hypocrites; it doesn't say not to judge), but let's hold you to your own standards. You say I'm not supposed to judge you, but yet you have judged me... you said I was "belittling" you and making "childish remarks." Why don't you stop judging me then? (Didn't consider that did ya?)

Evolution's not gonna' save you buddy. You're putting your trust and faith into the minds of men, and they can't save you. I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would have His will in your life so He can help you acknowledge the truth of His Word. (2Ti 2:25)


From Nathan; June 7, 2013
Ok. Basically it's about the part of the website which discussed Hovind's 6 types of evolution. Evolution: A New-Age Religion There are an infinite number of types of evolution, not 6. Evolution means only change over time.
Thanks for writing me Nathan. I'll have to stop you for a moment to correct something you said. I am not arguing that there are not tons of different definitions for evolution. I agree the DICTIONARY has many. I am arguing that these are the six definitions of evolution that are used in PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS to explain the evolution model.
Once that is established, my argument is that we should not all have to pay for lies/religious claims of the first five definitions to be taught in the public school system.
I just wanted to clarify my position. I hope that does not disrupt your argument as I read over your letter. I'm not against teaching evolution in public schools, if facts are used to back it up, but I'm against lies being used to support a religious doctrine slipped unawares into science textbooks, especially when I have to pay for it.

But the theory of evolution by natural selection - i.e. darwinian evolution - is only one thing. It covers a total of 3 of the 6 types of evolution - micro, macro and abiogenesis/organic. Many atheists claim that darwinian evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but this is technically incorrect, as abiogenesis is the natural emergence of life, which is defined as a combination of biological processes, which only developed after a replicator (such as a ribozyme) formed naturally from chemicals and began to evolve.
You're one of the rare evolutionists who will admit that abiogenesis is part of the evolution model. I agree with you about atheists; they generally ignore the title of Darwin's book: The ORIGIN of Species, where he never really addresses the origin of species. It has to go back to a beginning point, so I commend you for taking that stance, which, from my experience, so few evolutionists are willing to stand on.

There is a link between the other given types of evolution and darwinian evolution, but there is also a link between (as an example) geography, geology, cosmology, and astrophysics. This doesn't mean that they're part of each other.
I agree. However, that is not what many public school textbooks teach, and that's certainly not the impression that is given in public school classrooms. Just yesterday, I made available part 1 of seminar 1 in our new, updated seminar series, and I demonstrate many textbooks and science organizations that are not presenting evolution as you are describing to me in this letter.
The point I make is that if the examples I give are not really part of evolution, then evolutionists should be on my side for pointing out that those things should not be included in public school science textbooks.

There are also a few inaccuracies in the description of the types of evolution, especially in chemical evolution which states that "all known experiments have shown us you can't get past iron", which ignores how the huge amounts of energy in supernovae can produce heavy elements, and how we have artifically fused elements to produce ones up to element 118.
Which breaks back down almost immediately. Successful experiments have shown iron to be the only stable substance to come out of fusion, and if you have something that says this is incorrect, show it to me, and I'll take a look at it.
By the way, that is the only the FIRST obstacle evolutionists have to overcome. Proving that this happens in stars is another huge obstacle because no one has ever seen a star up close to know if it's even like our sun. Even if fusion was able to be used to produce all elements, it still doesn't prove the evolution model of the production of star fusing chemicals to have actually happened in history.

And "the stars themselves are made of elements" which only shows a complete lack of understanding of what the big bang theory states - it produced matter, in the form of hydrogen and helium. Claiming that we don't have an explanation for this is ignorant at best.
??? Was there something here I missed? This part didn't even make sense.
I state, for example, in my seminar (link above) that if the Big Bang produced some hydrogen and helium, the obvious question is: how did the other elements come into existence? I'm sorry Nathan, but just saying "Chris, you have a lack of understanding about the Big Bang," is not an argument (except ad hominem; claiming I'm ignorant), and it doesn't make a point. Until I see some corrections to something I have incorrect, my seminar and articles will remain the same.

But the point which annoys me the most however, are the accusations of what atheists believe, such as "atheists believe ends justify means" and "atheists believe laws of logic are just social customs". There's no group view in atheism, at least none which are official (other than that we do not believe in god), and certainly none at all regarding morality.
I agree that I have some past corrections to make in differentiating atheism and evolutionism. I was taught as they were one and the same, because to be an atheist, one almost has to believe in evolution, but just because atheists believe in evolution, it doesn't make all evolutionists atheists by default. However, your frustration seems to be misplaced because now you are no longer referring to "Evolution: A New-Age Religion," as you stated at the beginning; you have switched instead to quotations from "How to Talk with Atheists," of which, those quotes you quoted me on are accurate to the context of the article.
If you believe that there are no atheism group views regarding morality, I agree. That's why I say repeatedly that atheists have no justification for morals, and that's one of the many things that makes it so dangerous, but this conversation was supposed to be about evolution, based on your opening paragraphs, and I'm trying to stick with that.

There are multiple points where the writer of the article has either misunderstood what the atheists meant, or just happened to be debating to atheists who didn't know the answer - just because some of us can't explain something doesn't mean none of us can.
Just because one person can't explain something doesn't mean others can't explain it either... that is a true, logical statement. However, no atheists can even begin to explain the basic questions I ask about logic, and that has been demonstrated repeatedly for at least the past 20 years since Greg Bahnsen started posing those same questions. If they remain unanswered, then atheists do not have an answer. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I don't reform my ministry based on what might upset someone.

Morality comes from evolution (I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS A VALID BASIS, this is only WHY we have it)
I'm sorry Nathan, but just saying "morality comes from evolution," is automatically claiming a valid basis because you're assuming that evolution is a fact, and therefore are forced to use it as a philosophical standard of development.

Populations with a form of morality were more successful as they supported each other, increasing their chances of survival.
I'm going to assume you haven't seen our evolutionist guest interviews on our show about this. I would highly suggest watching some of those because they have already come on our show live and tried that argument, and it goes nowhere fallaciously fast.
In fact, that guest started out emailing me just like you are doing now, so it may peak your interest. Maybe not. I don't know. Throw caution to the wind and give it a click. :D

The point about feelings is not supposed to mean "if it feels good to do it then do it" it is "if the effects on others of me doing this produce good feelings then it is good to do it" it's not based on the perspective of the subject, but of the object.
The perspective is irrelevant to your argument because you are begging the question: "Why are good feelings right?" Before you can can decide what is good, bad, right, or wrong, you first have to decide how you're deciding.

There are SOME parts of morality which are societal norms, but the majority are not, and are known to be almost universal (studies have demonstrated that various cultures always have the same moral standards for situations such as killing others as collateral damage to save others). Certain people have mental illnesses such as schizophrenia which mean that these morals do not apply, but generally morality is universal.
You just put morality to a foundation of whether the human brain is capable of understand feelings, but still calling it universal? I honestly don't intend to sound arrogant (although, I probably will), but you wouldn't last 30 seconds on our show.

Evolutionarily speaking there is technically no reason that we must behave morally, but evolution is not any moral standard, and is not any reason to do anything.
Thank you for your honest admission. I appreciate that, and I agree.

Evolution didn't mean that Hitler was right to try and exterminate inferior races, gravity doesn't mean it's right to push people off of cliffs, and the nuclear bomb isn't made morally right by relativity. Evolutionists also see a few problems in the creationist basis for morality - that it is the laws given by god. Simply because something declares itself to be right by virtue of its infinite power removes all value from actions - what's "good" isn't necessarily good in itself, it's just what makes god happy, who (hypothetically speaking) may be really evil, but using his omnipotence to mislead you into thinking he is loving.
That's an incorrect argument if you're talking about the Christian God of the Bible. In order to define 'good' in the Bible, the Bible must be used for determining definitions, but this not what you did. You put your definition of good as "whatever makes God happy," and the Bible does not define 'good' that way. Certainly, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross to save mankind did NOT make God happy (Mat 27), but it was good. In fact, you would probably be surprised to learn that the word "happy" does not appear in the Bible, so again, when defining words in the Bible, we must use the context of the Bible, and not just make up definitions that satisfy our personal idea of what "God" is. (When we make up a personal concept of God that is not found in Scripture, that's called idolatry, i.e., making an fake idol/image of God in our imagination.)

Also, the laws of logic are not social customs - their effectiveness is demonstrated by the results which its application gives.
Many atheists would disagree with you. We've had atheists I've already personally interviewed on our show, and we have a list of them I'm waiting to put on our show until I get a new microphone that are going to argue the same things. They say the laws of logic are like "axioms," which boils down to them being majority opinion based on regions. (i.e. logical fallacy)

We know logic works because it leads to the right conclusions in the vast majority of situations.
Majority opinion is ad populem fallacy. That means the foundation of your logic is based in logical fallacy. Are logical fallacies the answer to atheist logic?

Of course, it is occasionally wrong, but there is little or nothing that we have which is better.
Can the law of gravity be occasionally wrong and still be a law? If the laws of logic are occasionally wrong, then they're not laws, and that means they're also not logic.

Logic can also be explained by evolution - the ability to use logic gave us a greater chance of survival.
We need to expound on this statement a moment. That's not even a basis for logic. I'm not sure if you've have studied this out much. The laws of logic are a precondition of intelligibility. If one is relying on survival as a precondition of intelligibility, then one cannot even determine if surviving is helpful at all, which means our very existence could be an accident, and all mankind needs to die to correct the problems of this world, and you couldn't prove that wrong because your foundation lies in survival.
What you just used is actually a common used argument for morals, so you are actually begging the question of why survival is logical? If you must use laws of logic to determine why survival is logical (which you have no choice but to do), then survival is not your foundation for the laws of logic.
In case you didn't understand what I was saying, if survival is the foundation for laws of logic, but I said it was logical for you to die, the only way to explain why you shouldn't die is by first assuming you shouldn't die, and that's puts you in a hopeless loop of circularity.

The reason that we should stick with it is that its use has clear benefits - this chemical reduces the size of this cancerous tumour, therefore it may be useful as an anti-cancer medicine. Things which are dropped fall at an increasing rate and hitting the ground at a high rate can cause injury or death, therefore you should not drop yourself off of high objects. Of course there are limitations, but then when you apply new information, such as that hydrogen will rise when it is dropped due to its lower density than air, these limits are pushed further and further back.
I saw you reference to my article about "How to Talk with Atheists," but did you read it all? Saying that if I drop a pen and it will fall... that is not a foundation for logic because you must use logic to determine those things. If you say, "I have prediction powers from logic, so therefore it is verified " (which is what scientific analysis does), my question is how do you know that you did not come into existence at the beginning of reading this sentence with all your memories implanted in your brain? Atheist or evolutionist, how would you know it? In fact, that is improvable from an atheistic/evolutionary worldview.
All I have seen you do so far is beg the question, and it's nothing new from things I have heard directly from guests on our podcast. So when you make the same arguments as other atheists, it simply demonstrates that the atheistic worldview (and likewise the evolutionary worldview) has no answer for these questions. When you say that "well, maybe you just talked to wrong atheists," is you using FAITH that, even though you don't have answer, somewhere, somehow, someone has an answer. And that demonstrates my point: Atheists live by faith.

Claiming that you have a basis for these things and we do not does not undermine us anyway - even if we don't know why we have morality it doesn't mean that we are wrong about everything else.
I didn't say atheists were wrong about everything. I said the atheist worldview is unable to account for logic, morals, and their foundational philosophy is firmly planted in evolutionism.

Likewise, you don't know exactly what god's motivation in creating the world is - this lack of knowledge doesn't mean that you are wrong.
That's incorrect. I know God's motivation for creating the world. Just because you may not personally know the reason, doesn't mean God did not tell us. God tells us in His Word what His motivation is, but you seem to be satisfied with ASSUMING what you want to believe, rather than asking me to gain an understand of what God's Word says on the issue.
In Gen 3:8, God walked and talked with Adam and Eve; and He wants fellowship with us. What would be the point in sending His Son to die to save us if He did not want fellowship with us? All throughout the Bible, God is seeking fellowship with His people.
God also created the world so that we would give him glory for the things He made for us. (Psalm 19)
But God also knew you were going to reject Him. That's why He gave you free will to believe in pagan religions, like evolution, which takes mental gymnastics to accept, but there are consequences because you have broken God's Laws just like I have. Lying, stealing, blasphemy, fornication, idolatry... take your pick. All these things have an eternal punishment attached to them. The only difference between you and me is that I have repented and sought out Jesus Christ to pay my eternal penalty, but you are choosing to pay your own.
Good luck with that.

Likewise, a lack of fossils doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong (at least in terms of what you call microevolution), as we can observe it happening in nature and in controlled laboratory conditions.
Actually the lack of fossils DOES mean Darwinian evolution is wrong. Darwin himself said so. This is taken directly from The Origin of Species:
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record."
-Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Appleton, 1882, p. 138

This means that if fossil evidence doesn't exist, Darwin's theory is not true. What's important to understand at this precise moment is that despite the fact that you are admitting a lack of fossil evidence, and I'm showing you that Darwin himself said would disprove his theory, you will still hang on to evolution.
Now the question is: "How would I possibly know that?" How would I know that there is no way you would change your position? Do I know you personally? No, I don't know you. But God knows you. And His Word tells us why you will hang on to any concept except Him.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
-Romans 1:20

That means you already know of His existence, but openly deny Him anyway. And God says that when you stand before Him in judgment, you won't have any excuses.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
-Romans 1:21

Rather than accept the True Living God, and avoid having to change your lifestyle, you would rather accept something imaginary that has nothing concrete to back it up.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
-Romans 1:24

Romans 1 is clearly explaining that atheists want to reject God out of lust, not logic. Evolutionists want to reject God because of their sin, not their science. This is a heart issue, not a head issue.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
-Romans 1:26

Like I said, I don't know you. But God does. And He's calling you out on the truth of your heart. He did to me, and I responded because I don't want to pay an eternal penalty, but I can't make your choice for you. Jesus Christ is the only way out (John 14:6), and the choice is yours.

Have a wonderful day. :D


From Katerina; June 1, 2013
Wow, you are really off. Based on your comment "When students are taught they are nothing more than random chemicals that washed up on the beach by random chance, that is exactly how they will interpret everything around them."I believe in evolution, as do most of my religious friends, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc.
It's sounds like you're very upset, and though most people who write me like you have don't want an answer (they just want to complain), I'll go over your letter anyway.
If you don't mind, I'd have to ask you the same question my mother used to ask me as a child: "If your friends all decided to jump off a bridge, would you do it too?" Is the collective majority opinion of your friends the way you determine truth?

The fact that everything is made of chemicals and that we are the result of selection of random mutations makes me even more appreciative of life.
Another question: If you simply state something in an email, does that make it true? If you state something loudly or forcefully or very often... does that make it true automatically? I don't think you're stupid, so I would say you probably understand that just asserting that random mutations is how all life was developed as a "fact," does not automatically make it a fact just because you said it is. And then we need to ask this question: Why is appreciating life "good" according to your worldview? In fact, there is no such thing as morals if evolution is true; and likewise, no such thing as good or bad. You can read about it in "Evolution Can't Justify Morals," or you can watch live interviews I've had with evolutionists on this issue. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6EkazVXr2A) Whether you understood it or not, the sentence you wrote tells others that evolution makes you appreciate life, and appreciating life is a good and moral thing, and therefore, evolution is also good and moral... and that is logically fallacious without explaining what "good" is first.

I love others, believe in living an honest life, do no unjust harm, and help others as we can.
Another question: Have you ever told a lie in your life? What does that make you? How many lies to does one have to tell before they become a liar? 100? 10? 1? This letter has turned into you trying to justify yourself as a "good person," and not guilty of God's Laws. I'm sorry, but the Bible says you are guilty of the Law of God, and there is eternal punishment attached to breaking God's Law, so you will have to either pay that yourself, or find someone else to pay it for you.
If you think that doing a bunch of "good" actions is going to make up for your "bad" actions, try that in a court of law, and see how far you get: "Judge, I know was caught speeding and I got this ticket, but look at all the times I didn't speed!" You will still have to pay the fine. That's like a man charged with murder, and he says, "Oh judge, you wouldn't punish me, I mean... look at all the people I didn't kill." That is not logical at all.

I am atheist.Hitler did believe in god, wrote it on the Nazi uniforms, and no matter how much you don\'t want to believe it does not make it not true, my dear.
You're only telling half the truth, and it's probably something you learned from an atheist website instead of reading Mein Kampf. Hitler was an evolutionist and believed in strange pagan gods, and did not believe in the Christian God of the Bible. Click the link to learn more about "Was Adolf Hitler a Christian?"

Catholics ARE Christians. They believe in Christ and that he died for their sins. How is your version of christianity better than other versions?
Again, if you say that loudly and forcefully, and say it very often... does that make it true? Do you believe Catholics are Christians because they SAY they're Christians? So you just believe whatever someone tells you? We demonstrate very clearly, using the Catholics own arguments and documents, that the Catholic church has never been true Christianity: http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/religioncatholic.php
I know full-well you won't click on these, and even if you do, you won't read them. This letter is very obvious that you're just trying to justify your beliefs to me. I don't really care what you want to believe; that doesn't bother me. But what's interesting is that what I have said and taught has obviously been convincing to you, and struck a nerve with you, otherwise you would just ignore me as some quack. You're trying to justify yourself as a good person, because you know in your heart you are guilty of breaking God's Laws, but you don't want to understand it, and the Bible says you don't want to understand.

How self-righteous can you be?
Wait wait wait... I have said on my website and youtube videos that I am a wicked sinner, guilty of the law, and that I'm not a good person, I'm just saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. You just spent this whole letter telling me what a good person you are, and then YOU accuse ME of being self-righteous? Hahaha! Are you even reading what you write?

And what is saddest of all is that someone can honestly show you this, and you are so egoistic that you will dismiss it and convince yourself you are right and everybody else in the world is wrong.
Ma'am... that's exactly what you have just done in this letter. First of all, you haven't shown me anything yet; you are just making claims about what you believe. I provide documentation and references and logical arguments on our website and videos, which means I am demonstrating to you the truth, but you will dismiss it and convince yourself you are right and I am wrong. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of, and won't even see that you've done it.

So sad. And no need to quote me the bible. I was a born-again christian and studied it in depth for years. Probably know it better than even you. :) Take care, my dear.
Well, maybe you do know the Bible better than me, but for someone who openly claims she has more Biblical knowledge than I do, you are embarrassing yourself by walking around telling people what a good person you are. Have a wonderful day. :D

CLE Only

Google+ Facebook Tumblr
Twitter Youtube Youtube

Android via Amazon
Google Play