Soon creationism WILL have a book which is taught as science…the old physics of cause and effect…and everyone wanting to have it taught in the classroom will have a textbook to do it with. The Quest for Right is that book. See our website at http://www.questforright.com. The Quest for Right is a series of 7 textbooks designed for the public schools. Volume 1 can now be purchased at the above website and should be availabe by the end of Jan. Volume 2 and 3 will be close behind it. This book is going to change the world!!

Evolution doesn’t exist. Never did, never will. The more so-called ’scientists’ try to prove evolution, the more they prove intelligent design. They desperately don’t want to be accountable to a holy, righteous God is why they pathetically keep trying and pushing their liberal agenda in our government controled schools.

Amazing that the “educated” cannot grasp that scince proves/confirms the bible - not the other way around. Talk about needing to study things with an open mind…………….

Believing that you evolved from a monkey is a great excuse for acting like one. Science has attempted to make a man out of a monkey for years but only yielded making a monkey out of man. Imagine if a monkey did have the ability of complex reasoning and the ability to look at his actions introspectively and to discern his thoughts, motives and intents. He would surely take every evolutionist to task; what a severe injustice to insinuate that such a creature could have ever evolved form us!!! When has a monkey ever inflicted the atrocities on its race that we have on ours; Hitler, Charles Manson, John Gacy, Jack the Ripper, Son of Sam….. I could go on for the rest of my life; LITTERY! “In the beginning GOD created.” What part of “beginning” dose a scientist honestly know about, do you have any pictures, were you their, do you know someone who was? You have only your finite speculations relegated to the time continuum in which you have to place limited information into your limited mind. Hats off to the evolutionist who believes that all the complexities of the universe just happened by accident he has far more faith than I will ever have. “The fool has said in his heart their, no GOD. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, their is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1.
Be honest with your self; that sum up the truth about man. FTH

I was at the Saint Louis Science Center today and wondering how our Science Centers can get more involved with the campaign to support, well, science? http://sciencecenter.wordpress.com

This is hogwash. There are more holes in the “theory” of evolution than there are for creationism. Science today is more an more confirming creation and disproving evolution.

As a broadcaster who has worked with past Creationist/ID scientists; I find the story of “Concern” alarming. Just because one does not choose to agree with current fads is no reason to dismiss one’s study or one’s credentials.

It’s doubly troubling to see when we read stories like the one around Thanksgiving reporting on the shutting down of DC power plants in inner NYC; just because Edison and his cronies didn’t like the loss of power and prestige over the AC/DC debacle, that neighborhood has been kept on a stupid “power” grid for decades.

It’s the absolute same with this “Evolution” stupidity. One only needs to read past papers presented by evolutionists themselves; papers which establish that they could not accept each other’s explanations and/or “proofs” of their positions. Antogeny recapitulates Phylogeny is one of the best examples I can think of. That piece of “snake oil” has been in and out of favor several times since its first introduction and dismissal. It’s just that when other “proofs” (oops, excuse me; “scientific proofs”) are found faulty, the camp must resort to finding something else to “prove” their belief system(s).

I do not mean to endorse religion(s) by these points, just want to point out that people who detest arguments with data resort to calling each other “non-scientific” or “infidels” or whatever they find will appear to sway the argument in spite of the data.

These so-called “scientists” who express such concern over evolution obviously have nothing better to do with their time other than produce and attempt to defend their own propaganda. It’s not science, it’s a vendetta, but I do not expect any better from them; I have been to their schools and I am not at all impressed. I am, however, annoyed at their misuse of science - as if they really knew what they were talking about.

Reminds me of the doctors who call the chiropractors “quacks” - from “quaksilber” (mercury) which “modern” doctors, at the turn of the last century, touted as the cure-all for everything. Mercurichrome was used on everything from a small scrape to tonsils. Now, we find that mercury poisioning is not such a great treatment. Both are considered “scientific”, but the most profitable is the one which is preferred as “real science”. Too bad more people are not as well informed, or as inclined to be. To the lazy belong the latest deadly conveniences.

My, my, just a little one-sided are we? Really, it’s almost laughable. What are these people afraid of? How dare anyone question evolution? Everyone (who is enlightened) knows that evolution is a fact, right?

We need to ask ourselves, if students are not allowed to question evolution then are we teaching them or brainwashing them? If the origin of the earth comes down to accepting what the teacher says carte blanch then we have to ask ourselves is this a classroom or a church? Is this a teacher or a priest? Is that a textbook or a bible? Is this science or is this another religion?

Of course such an idea does not sit well with the modern mind. Science is supposed to be divorced from religion. Science is about what we can observe and test in a laboratory. Religion is just a means for inferior minds to explain what they cannot understand. Science rises above religion and unlocks the mysteries of heaven. We call it the scientific method.

So what does this have to do with evolution?

The scientific method requires that an experiment must be reproducible in order to verify a theory. The problem is that Evolution (man from molecules) is not subject to the scientific method. Galileo observed the planets with his telescope and Newton watched apples fall from a tree. There is no experiment, however, that can take an ape and produce a man just as there is no experiment that can take non-living matter and produce life.

To be fair, the same is true of the assertions of Creationism. What God did when He made the world is not a repeatable experiment. Yet, as with evolution, we can observe the results of those actions. So the real question we should be asking in the evolution versus creation debate is which theory offers a better explanation of what see now?

The problem is that the intellectual elite in our school systems and our government are telling us that this question is not allowed to be asked. Can you imagine that? They have already decided the answer for you. Evolution is a fact and anyone who questions that will be ridiculed and shamed into silence.

I ask again, what are these people afraid of? Is the theory of evolution so fragile that it must be protected lest it fall apart? Why not present the evidence and let students choose for themselves?

Their unwillingness to do so reveals more about their character than they would be willing to admit. A truly honest quest for truth demands a willingness not only to follow the clues but to accept the conclusion wherever it may lead. This is something that these people are not willing to do. They have already decided what the truth is.

For these people evidence is only a means to the end. What the evidence contains is not important to them; it’s only a matter of how it can be shaped to fit their conclusion. The most poignant example of this is in radiometric dating. Scientists routinely throw out the results of materials sent in for radiometric dating because the dates do not fit what they think they should be.

This should not be entirely surprising. Ultimately, we only have two choices when confronted with evidence that does not fit what we believe: we either examine whether our belief is in error or we twist the evidence to fit our preconceived ideas. Unfortunately, it is much easier to change the evidence than it is to change our mind. We would rather hold on to our pet ideas than admit that we could be wrong.

And so here we are. The evolution versus creation debate is not about science or religion. It’s a question of conscience. You can’t have truth without honesty and an education system that only presents one side of the story because it has already decided what is true is not honest.

Nonetheless, peoples minds can be changed. William Wilberforce did it over 200 years ago in Britain. Slavery was as well accepted back then as evolution is today. Nonetheless he devoted his life to ending the slave trade. Founded upon the belief that “All men are created equal in the sight of God” he wielded the weapon of truth to open their eyes and to make them look at the untainted evidence. For most of his life all he got was ridicule and scorn, yet in the end the truth won.

Personally, I don’t doubt that there is a God.

I also feel we should all drink the blood, and partake of the body, of a zombie jew to be forgiven of sin which was forced upon us because a woman ate a piece of fruit. We also know that at least two of every land animal lived within walking distance of a certain ark, and that a man can live just fine in the body of a whale.

That certainly make much more since than the garden of eden being in Missouri, and a man reading scripture off gold plates out of a hat with somehow magical seer stones.

Excuse me. I believe in God.
To quote Einstein, “There’s only two things that are infinite, the universe, and human stupidity, and I’m not too sure about the former.

Who would have thought that so many persons are nowadays capable to object scientific indoctrination? While reading the comments I found what maybe 2 decades before, or 3, 4, 5, 6,…. yet 100 years and more, would have been much more difficult to find.
People enter into a stage of post-secularism, and they reject what began with pure scientifically driven blind submission in the late Italian Renaissance. But science will reign over the minds soon, again.
Domination through education, our submission under purpose-created “wars”, the Real ID, implanted ID, yet the popular sciences, they will bring Welles’ Big Brother over us, him surveilling, introspecting us.
Faith is then probably the only thing that can save the last families and their children from the bespying governments, who revive Hitler’s Total War in the mindset of our and coming generations.
Why is it that since mankind all religions have the same teachings?
Without exception, and all around the globe has this been found.
Why do they all talk about creation?
Who is the Master of this world, and its rules?
Does not the Torah give knowledge about the purpose of life?
Does not the Bible tell us that the earth is a part of the universe?
Does not the Quran bring proof for countless phenomena before their discovery by science in New Age?
Science is descriptive.
It should return to its domain, and not become creative.
Because the most power can be in that very area, or it ends up in hokuspokus, and self-ridiculing people who we admire for their honest struggle to understand the world and its processes.
Leave what is not comprehensible to the believers, and when you have the means to proof………………………. we will welcome you.
The creation is described in the books of revelations as worshipping God through out their existence. Nowadays could be found that plants have receptors that make them capable to feel pain. It is a strange thing to believe that. Animals were from scientists over the time of enlightenment into the last decades of the 20th century, just seen as soulless objects.
We still treat them accordingly. Strange but that proof has been found for the anima in the animals, and that through behavioral studies in a huge number of species.
Reasoning does not always root in substantial analysis.
There are other ways.
And I am believer.
There is no god worthy of worship but God,
and He sent to us myriads of prophets.
Their few are Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and they submitted their life to the message of God.
That is the reason that His messengers are enjoying at times unique privileges and protection. Countless prophets had been tortured and killed for being the announcers of happiness.
The miracle of Mariam is reported in all monotheist sciptures, and they do all confirm that Jesus is the Word of God, not his son though, but the incarnated Will of Creation. No human sperm had been necessary.
All deceased shall be resurrected on the Day of Judgment, and all monotheist religions with more than 3′000′000′000 living persons on earth at least formally believe that.
Now, when the equation of evolution can impossibly make it possible that you can read my text right now, then it is recommended to cease books that claim the correctness of Darwin’s first of all Theory of Evolution. He himself was sceptic enough not to call it Law of Evolution.
If there are so many people - with right - so sure that we will be judged, and that there is a life after this life that will be eternal, whether in hell fire, or heavens………….. any scientist should be careful.
Because he can fall into a branch of occult idolatry that could anger the real Creator. Just stop it, wait and experiment further.
An innocent striver for knowledge won’t be punished, but an idolator who places gods besides the One.
He - our God - is a jealous God. And He will show us His secrets when He wants. Ask him. And pray. That is the only way.

AN IRONY: WHY DID DARWIN HATE A GOD WHOM HE DID NOT BELIEVE EXISTED?

The following dissertation on Darwin is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of seven books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as “atheistical cats.” By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation—read the matter in detail in Volume 1.

A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, “For the invisible things of him [God] 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 [men who 'hold the truth in unrighteousness'] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.”

In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do “not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: “Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], 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 1:21, 22).

In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient—willful, “done on purpose; deliberate.” The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.

Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity—objectively, “uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas.” In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he “could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.

In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here: http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.

Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the “constant inculcation” (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God” during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as “for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an “agnostic.” The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.

The Old Testament did not escape Darwin’s inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that “the manifestly false history of the earth….was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the “volumne (sic) on the origin of species…light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God—there is no God.

You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com

Purchase the book at one of these fine stores:  Barnesandnoble.com, Target.com, Amazon.com, Borders.com, Booksamillion.com, Tatepublishing.com, and many others. Hardback. In stock.