Thanks for the references!

I am sorry that your feelings were so hurt at the “storm trooper” comment, but the manner in which you militantly post the same comment would strongly suggest that some form of title would be given. Especially since you have some reason to hide your real name.

Well, since you are bringing truth to light, and we are in the dark, why don’t you enlighten us on evolution. Tell me what makes evolution so true? Is it the lack of transitional forms in the layers (as a church mom put it last night: “where is the fish with gills and legs?”) - or perhaps the amount of fossils in the record? Is it the fact that new information is never added into the genome? Is it the fact that the layers of the earth reveal a quick setting down of layers rather than a slow one?

Prove you wrong? How about proving yourself right! I can never show you a lack of evidence since that would require infinite knowledge, I can only take what is there and look at it.. I find it equally insulting that you would insinuate that we “really don’t know much of anything about the theory of evolution,” guess what? NO ONE does! Observable science has not proved evolution, and origin science is based on fallible opinions - which prove themselves fallible by their constant ‘revision’.

As for Ken Miller: if you reject Genesis you might as well reject Jesus. Jesus believed in Genesis and therefore Dr Miller would have confused it “unnecessarily“. You cannot go “halfsies” on the word of God. It’s an internal issue within Christendom, and the movie is looking at secular evolution vs Christian creationism. Christian evolutionism is another can of worms entirely. Of course he wouldn’t be expelled for being a Christian, but he would be if he believed Genesis.

Why the evangelical evolutionist approach? You seem keen to win converts, by bringing ‘truth’ to light, but your approach will not win anyone. You discuss the movie, but not the fundamental principle: evolutionary theory. You say how badly the movie is made and how it misses the point, but I think you missed the point. Are you proving evolution by proving this movie to be fallible? There is a fundamental fallacy here.

1- If you had relatives murdered by Nazi storm troopers, as I have, I don’t think you would be so cavalier with labeling people as such. If you are looking for a label, try teacher.

2- Benjamin Franklin is my real name.Perhaps you should read more about him, he truly was a great man.

3- For an introduction to evolution, try reading this list as a starting point

Alters, Brian J. and Sandra Alters
Defending Evolution
Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Pub (2001)

Berra, Tim M.
Evolution and the Myth of Creationism:
Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press (1990)

Eldredge, Niles
The Triumph of Evolution: and the Failure of Creationism
New York: W. H. Freeman. (2000)

Futuyma, Douglas J.
Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, revised edition.
New York: Pantheon. (1995)

Godfrey, Laurie
Scientists Confront Creationism
New York: W. W. Norton. (1988)

Haught, John F.
Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution
New York: Paulist Press. (2001)

Kitcher, Phillip
Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism
Cambridge: MIT Press. (1982)

Larson, Edward J.
Summer for the Gods
New York: HarperCollins. (1997)

Larson, Edward J.
Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation & Evolution
New York: Oxford University Press. (1989)

Matsumura, Molleen, ed.
Voices for Evolution, second edition Berkeley, CA: The National Center for Science Education, Inc. (1995)

Miller, James, ed.
An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution
Trinity International Press (2001)

Miller, Kenneth
Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground
New York: HarperCollins. (1999)

Pennock, Robert
Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (1999)

Pennock, Robert, ed.
Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (2001)

Ruse, Michael, ed.
But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Press. (1988)

Strahler, Arthur
Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Press. (1999)

Unfortunately, you continue to argue from ignorance. Before shouting how wrong Miller is, you should at least read his book to know how he accepts God and the bible.

I am not trying to prove evolution by proving the movie to be fallible, just as the movie does not even attempt to disprove evolution in any way. I am, however, showing how verifiably flawed the movie is, and that the statements and accusations it makes should not be believed.

I realize that I will not convert you, so continue to revel in your lack of knowledge and understanding, but I do hope that our children will, at the very least, be taught science in their science class, not religion. The place for teaching religion is in a class on religion or philosophy, the home- taught by parents, and in our churches

Dear Benjamin,

1. I apologize for the name given, I can only apologize for myself though. Even though it was not my idea, I ran with it, and consider myself responsible. There was no emotional harm intended from my side. I am sorry for your loss.

2. Well thanks for pointing that out now. It would have helped a lot earlier.

3. Thanks for all your biased reading material, I’m sure there is nothing implied by it. I could point out an equal amount of creationist reading, but it all just stems from one book, I’m sure you’ve heard of it. That is my authority when it comes to origins.

Ignorance: “The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.” Definition

In order to be ignorant of Dr Millers beliefs, I would have to know nothing about them. Well according to his web site I am quite the opposite of ignorant. I do not need to read his book, not that you know whether I have or not. He doesn’t even give the creationists a chance:
“If we accept a lack of scientific explanation as proof for God’s existence, simple logic would dictate that we would have to regard a successful scientific explanation as an argument against God. That’s why creationist reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than to science.”[SOURCE]

Excuse me? I do not recall saying scientific evidence disproves God’s existence! This kind of straw man will burn very easily, and rightly so!

You say “…just as the movie does not even attempt to disprove evolution in any way…” you hit the nail on the head. I failed to see references to the “flaws” that you pointed out. I am glad to see Tony is doing a better job than I am [HERE]. Your repeated comment has actually pointed me to a lot of good web sites… Thank you!

May you learn to research. May God bless you.

Mr Franklin,

Please do your own research in the future. If you are going to blatantly plagiarize I would rather be speaking to the original authors, not someone who regurgitates the work of others. As an evolutionist, you should accept the ‘fact’ that chewing the cud is done by lower animals.

You could have just cited the link to this list than publishing it on this site as well. [LIKE THIS]

Quintin-

Your responses continue to show that instead of saying anything that would support your argument, you simply spew childish insults. This reinforces the probability that you neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution.

You would be far better off reading the books on that list, and in a better position to attempt to refute them, than by fussing over the origin of the list.

Perhaps in your next comment you can show that you are not the idiot you appear to be, but I doubt it.

Mr Franklin,

I did post a response, but it was not published for some reason. I assume the editor preferred my later shorter comment. I thought that might happen. I can’t reply too long today either, I’m in Turkey for an engineering conference.

I would warn you about making assumptions, but that goes with the territory of evolutionists. I would also warn you against becoming that which you hate: calling me an idiot doesn’t do much for your case. At least my comments are original.

I will try to find my comment - I usually back them up. Otherwise I’ll have to re-do it. You won’t have to wait millions of years, just six days or so.

Bye bye! Greetings from Izmir!

Dear Teacher,

1. I apologize for the label, as far as I used it. I did not intend to cause you any emotional damage by using that name. I can only apologize for myself, however.

3. Thanks for the reading list… I noticed you left out:

Numbers, Ronald L.
The Creationists
New York: Alfred Knopf. (1992)
A detailed history of modern creationism; traces its sources - obscure and famous - through exhaustive interviews and document searches. [SOURCE]

I would not recommend this to you, however. There is only one book I would recommend. It shouldn’t take too long for a man as intelligent as yourself to read. It’s the best seller of all time [PROOF]. You can also see on wikipedia [HERE]

After I wrote the comment was not published, I did a small blog on old Ken Miller, where I looked at an article exert from his book [KEN MILLER'S BIBLE]. I can see how he accepts God: according to his own standards, but he does not accept the bible. You can’t go ‘halfsies’ on it. See the last comment of my post here: [MORE EVOLUTION]. The summary is: “if Jesus confirms Genesis, which He does, then how can you say you believe IN Him when you don’t believe what He says?”

Woah woah woah… Did I say anything about the scholastic debate? In my very first blog - in which another evangelical evolutionist seemed to have a bone to pick with me - I said they shouldn’t teach what can’t be verified in the classroom, which includes evolution and religion. Let them have classes for religion and theory, so that the children are informed, but do not confuse theory with truth, otherwise we’re all in danger. Laws, now laws are science! Dinosaurs are science, but origins are not (at least the same kind of) science.

That’s pretty much all I have to say on what you said. I later realised that I do not trust you to come up with your own material and looked for that book list.

As for you last comment:
1. I know the arguments for and against evolution *YAWN*.
2. I can finally say you are 100% correct. If I wanted to refute those books, I would have to read them. It’s not the books themselves I have a problem with though. I could give you an equal list of rubbish and tell you to read that, and moan at you for not reading it. Unfortunately, even reading the bible may not help you (God must save you from Himself). I would beg you to consider that God is holy, that He judges sin and that you need a saviour.
3. I did not ‘fuss’ over the origin of the list. I clearly indicated that you seem incapable of producing your own work (can you disagree, given you have done it twice), except for the last post, which does impress me somewhat.