203 thoughts on “Silly Songs”

      1. They had fun concerts, though… until the Middle-Eastern Charismatic guy jumped up at intermission doing some loud and angry “preaching” which would make any Fundy’s hair curl.

  1. Way to pick on those sweet little girls! How many souls do you tink they’ve saved? How many have YOU saved. Probably not many? Being bitter on the Web instead of being FREE from the web of SIN and Sarchasm! The innocent shall overcome the proud, amen? Or do you not say “AMEN” in your high church. This web blog is full of “ecumenical” “monkey’s” if you ask me; all you do is fling your own “poo” at anyone who stands on the old paths. 😥

    1. “they” haven’t saved one soul…nor have I. The is the work of the triune God.

      I humbly ask you to check your theology.

      1. Acts 27:43 – But the centurion, willing to save Paul, kept them from their purpose; and commanded that they which could swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land:

        1. *looks at context around verse quoted*

          Wow, not only are we dealing with a Fundybot, we’re dealing with a buggy one. It just looked for the word “save” and threw something up that didn’t even work with the context of the thread.

          Improve the programming, please.

        2. What? So Paul got saved twice? Once in Acts 9 and then again in Acts 27? Maybe I’m not really saved. I mean, Jesus saved me, but maybe I need to be saved by a Centurion too… while on a boat.

    2. Oh, please. Nobody’s picking on the kids. They were just doing what adults told them to do.

      AFA everything else you said: Hm, working buzzwords, making dumb assumptions about high churches… oh, great, someone made a Fundybot!

    3. “How many souls do you tink they’ve saved?”

      With these songs, none.

      Oh and I haven’t been called bitter in quite awhile. Thanks for stopping by.

    4. We welcome you here with love despite your attitude towards us…but I do have some questions for you.

      Why do you feel that the “old paths” are right?

      Does your beliefs in the “old paths” trump the New Testament?

      How old do your “old paths” go…1950?

      Would you believe me if I told you that many of us as well follow a path that has been defended for 2000 years called orthodox Christianity? What many of us here believe is right in line with the tradition of Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Apostle Paul and goes all the way to the teachings of Jesus. You must admit that is some lineage. I would take that over the 100 year old theological tradition that most fundamentalists follow.

      We welcome your response.

      1. I suggest that you read “The Trial of Blood” by Dr. James Milton Carroll to see where the Baptists faith has remained unbroken from the days of the apostles. I’ts like a bypass around the catholics, prespys, episcopals and other ecuminical types. When the city center becomes a slum, look for the BYPASS!

        1. Ahahahahaha! The trail of blood! Thank yoou for confirming the fundy folklore version of history is still alive and kicking! Learn actual history, not that fantasy crap!

        2. *bbzzzt* Nope, wrong again. Baptists are separatists from the Church of England in the 1600s. Thank you for playing. Try again.

        3. *looks at chart, starts looking up key doctrines of these so-called Baptist churches, laughs at the idea that anyone could take this chart seriously or that people from these old churches would be allowed to darken the door of a modern IFB church*


        4. Look you folks can talk all day about Luther, Sprugeon, Swindoll, Jerome, etc., but that’s what happens when people look to MEN instead of GOD! It’s like Bros. Hyles and Schaap have said for decades – it’s the KJV that’s the rock of our faith!

        5. That chart means nothing without referencing source material and research. I can draw a picture showing Queen Mary gave birth to George Bush before the war of 1812. It means nothing without showing original research. I assume you’re sincere about what you believe, and are probably basing your position based on things told you by men you respect. I understand that, we all do it to some extent.But I realized not long ago that much of what is thundered from the pulpit really is conjecture, subjective, and fluid. I’m not talking about true bible doctrine, mind you. But some views on standards, certainly. Same for some of the history some are claiming. A lot of it really is a stretch, some conjecture and guesswork, and assumptions. Do some independent reading on baptist history. You can start with fundamentalist authors if you like. But watch for qualifying words before statements (probably, most likely, surely). Ask yourself how the author knows what he is writing (is it a guess? does he cite a source?). Then track down those sources and read them. Continue that pattern until you come across some original research. I guarantee it will be vastly different from the book you picked up when you started the chain.

        6. Yes, BOT. Not even close to an original argument.

          Although I must admit that I’m confused about whether you’re done by a Fundy or just someone into parodies. Jumping on people for simply mentioning past leaders of the faith, and then naming two that demand 100% allegiance to themselves? That’s a riot.

        7. “The Trail of Blood” book is well known to be the equivalent of historical fiction. Remarkably, Dr. J.M. Carroll, who wrote “The Trail of Blood,” later reversed his position, after studying the facts and researching history more. He apparently wasn’t able to undo all of his damage, though, because many IFB churches still promote his book.

        8. “…that’s what happens when people look to MEN instead of GOD! It’s like Bros. Hyles and Schaap have said for decades…”

          LOL Does anyone else here see the incredible irony and absolute hypocrisy of this set of statements. LOL It’s just too much!

        9. We in the Church o’ Christ had several books like that, all showing how WE were the ONLY ones whose church and doctrine came from the apostles and how every other church and doctrine were followers of other men. It, too, was historical fiction.

        10. The mark of a true fundy: Cannot differentiate “apostate” from “a prostate” or “prostrate”.

      2. Actually, PS, the old paths go back a little farther: 1910 was the year the Fundamentals were published. 🙂

        But yeah, what’s a hundred years in a 2000-year church history? 😛 😀

    5. I thought this was gonna be a hilarious CampMeetingGirl parody character until the typos and bad grammar started, and then the bitterness accusations closely behind confirmed another fundy!

      1. That is exactly what I was thinking!

        bad grammar – check
        misspellings – check
        playing the bitter card – check
        answering with a bible verse he/she “thinks” applies – check

        We have a fundy

        1. * creates a new word: sarchasm – check
          * quotes wikipedia as being a good source of information – check

          All we need is a link to The Onion, HAYMEN?

        2. Wikipedia lists facts for all sorts of stuff correctly, and you probably don’t disagree with that. Whos’e got the biase now?

        3. Nah…
          OHappyDay is fake fundy—gotta be satire/sarcasm as he /she quotes so many data points from this site.
          I call fraud.

        4. You’re living proof of the “know the real thing, and you’ll spot the counterfeit” story. Kudos! 🙂

        5. No, I’m the President and Custodian at Bumsquat Baptist Basement Bible College and Automotive Repair School. We give out hon’rary doctorates in Muffler Hanging, too, if you’re interested.

        6. OH!!! This thread has been fantastic! The scary part is that the Bot was so close to real life that I spotted all the crazy lies I’ve been believing about Bapitist history.
          The trail of blood belief system is VERY alive and well…thanks for the hilarious lesson in craziness and truth..

        7. Welcome back, then! And yeah, seconding the thanks for the reminder about that part of Baptist teaching. I never understood the reasoning in the first place.

        8. Well now don’t I feel stupid 😳

          Good job Kind Of Bored or OHappyDay or whoever you are.

          And leave it to John to sniff out the fake fundy 😀

        9. @OHappyDay TRAIL OF TEARS? You are aware that’s a reference to the forced relocation of Native American tribes not the trail of blood (which is a fundamentalist fiction bots like yourself pretend really happened?

    6. Masterfully done, KOB! When I read your first few comments I thought, “Oh boy–are you sure you wanna do this, buddy?”

    7. I am so glad I left fundyism. I used to do this. God’s grace is good – if the Son shall set ye free, ye shall be free indeed.

      OHappyDay – do you really believe that Jesus washed all your sins away? If so, why are you so angry towards others.

    8. You know, those old paths.. That’s an Old Testament reference right? Jer 6:16 right?

      You know that Jesus says that there is a new and living way, a better covenant, a new law that is not part of the Mosaic law (the new commandment is love others and love God AS Jesus Christ has loved us). The old paths (law) have been found wanting, they had no power to make man righteous, but only to expose his sin. The new (grace) makes man righteous, undeservingly.

        1. But you gave an EXCELLENT answer about the “old paths!” Christ came to make all things new! 🙂

    9. Spelling error (check)
      Grammar error (check)
      Dangling preposition (check)
      Uses verse unrelated to context of discussion (check)

      I think we have a live one! 😀

      Welcome OHappyDay!

      1. That’s what I get for responding to a post that’s been left up in my browser all night. Why is it so hard for me to remember to refresh? Thanks for the laughs everyone!

  2. Was this recorded in the 50’s? It sounds really old, not just “old-fashioned” (HAC style), but like it really is from the 50’s, just by the way the man talked and the girls are singing.

  3. Didn’t Jesus tell a parable about the wheat and the tares, and how he will sort everything out in the end?

  4. Hmmmm……I will just say that I am so happy to be a part of a church where every song the we sing is designed to draw our hearts to God. They show worship and adoration to our glorious maker and savior and don’t make political and divisive statements.

    If our hearts are where they should be (in a state of adoration to Christ) then all these others issues that fundamentalists love to focus on will fall into place. We will have convictions and beliefs but they will come from a love for Christ not from a fear of fundy judgement. It is a beautiful thing.

    1. Good point. Every religious community has songs, but the only people I’ve heard sing songs that mocked other people’s faith were all members of one of two sects– Fundamentalists or hard-line Communists (who are, as we know, just another kind of Fundamentalists).

  5. Sidelining of the the life & teachings of Christ is as heretical as those who marginalize the resurrection. The first half to 3/4 of the Gospel accounts isn’t there to just personalize or humanize Christ before you get to the point of his death and resurrection. Grrrrr.

  6. I was curious, so I looked the sisters up and found this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Bernard

    Robyn went on to act in General Hospital; Crystal was in Happy Days, Wings, Young Doctors in Love, and Slumber Party Massacre 2. She apparently still sings.

    The recording was from a 1972 service at Jerry Falwell’s church.

        1. Even worse than the first in that genre is reeeeally saying something!

          Back in my Slasher film loving days, this one was sub par even then. I recall her from “Wings” and had no idea.

          You learn “stuff” everyday at Stuff.

    1. I fell in love with Helen on Wings (Crystal Bernard) basically every single week. I wish that show were still on the air.

      1. Somehow my Port ended up above instead of below…musta hit the wrong button. My bad.

        Now I want to go watch some of my Monk videos

        Or Galaxy Quest again

        1. Crystal was in Galaxy Quest? I can only think of Sigourney Weaver, and don’t know who played the alien seductress, but didn’t think it was Crystal Bernard.

        2. Oh I see. Tony Schaloub. Yeah I found him on there, but I never really got that into his other roles that much.

      1. Yes. He put out an album with a sermon on it and these two songs. I (well my dad) had it when I was a kid. LOL. She was hot on Wings. Watched it while I was at Liberty University. LOL

  7. Awesome! Thank you for sharing this, we will make sure our Kid’s Choir learns this and sings it soon.

    Maybe immediatly after “I’n No Kin To The Monkey”!


  8. This stupid song is officially stuck in my head. I need to go read my 1611 to cleanse myself … [gag]

    Why, may I ask, did it take the preacher an entire minute to introduce these girls at the beginning anyway? I was so tired of his repetition by the time he was done, I was almost GLAD to hear them sing. Almost.

  9. I was beginning to wonder if John changed his name to OHappyDay…but to John’s credit…he’s a little more edumacated than that.

  10. FWIW – I knew Crystal Bernard was raised Protestant…just didn’t know she was a fundy. Interesting.

  11. If Evolution really had anything to do with monkeys then evolution would be absurd, but since it doesn’t this song attacks a straw man that doesn’t exist it is just sad.

      1. I can attest none of the Rosedales were homeschooled, and were all taught strict 6 24 hour day creationism. Some just evolved.

        1. I was just monkeying around 😛

          All the evolution I was taught and believed (Public schooled all the way, wasn’t converted to Christianity until college age) had the “monkey chart”.

        2. It’s true I had Rob’s mother as a teacher. She taught me well. Faithfully in literal 6 day creation. But now I have evolved. Well really I’ve just evolved enough to seek the truth rather than talking points. If there was a “monkey chart” it was an oversimplified unscientific chart designed to make understanding easier. The real theory never had to do with monkeys and really only has to do with common ancestry which again has nothing to do with Monkeys or Apes.

        3. @John, you said you were “public schooled all the way, wasn’t converted to Christianity until college age” (Praise the Lord for your salvation!). I wanted to ask if you were raised IFB and only realized you hadn’t been truly converted until college or were you raised in a different kind of church or none at all? (I find that people’s experiences in the IFB are highly influenced by WHEN they were under that teaching: as an adult or from infancy.)

        4. @John,

          Absolutely untrue. You’ve bifurcated the issue to make it Bible vs Science. But that simply isn’t the case. Look below at the Tim Keller link I shared. I challenge you to read it. Not to change your mind about evolution or 6 day creationist, but to challenge you to be more loving towards people who disagree and people who truly struggle over this issue.

          Evolution != atheism the same as creationism != science. Dawkins may use evolution as a whipping boy against Christians, but that isn’t what the true science of evolution is about. A book that might help you is Absence of Mind http://www.amazon.com/Absence-Mind-Dispelling-Inwardness-Lectures/dp/0300145187 She is an atheist, but there is a section where she talks about how people who claim the truths of science are using science, but not in a way that is consistent with science. IOW they’ve taken truths of science and abused them for their own purposes and using it outside of its intended purpose or scope. Or one cannot say that evolution disproves God. This is what makes creation science an oxymoron. It seeks to prove God by disproving Evolution. It just doesn’t work that way. You disprove evolution and another theory will come up. Ultimately it is a fools errand because one cannot scientifically prove God exists.

        5. @Pastors Wife

          I wasn’t raised in any Church of any kind.

          Even after my conversion I visited around to different denominations and found that after a lenhty and discouraging search, the IFB Church was the only one that actually taugth the Bible expositorally. (Book by book studies on Wednesdays, series on Sunday nights etc.) and the only Church that had members who had changed lives. (I knew some from my Heavy Metal band days)

          I left for awhile after going to Bible collge and quitting because of it’s shallowness,(and legalism), then wandered into Reformed Theology where I stayed a few years -including college-(and encountered way worse shallowness & legalism) and then found out that it’s system was severly lacking in Bible exposition, (heavy in history-but only the kidn that favored it) so again the IFB Churches were the closest I could find.

          Still are.

          If I could find closer, I’d become one.

          Sure, here’s bones to be spit out and plenty of problems , but having close friends in different denominations, that is universal AND less doctrinal than practical.

          Have I encountered kooks? You betcha-especailly the HAC kind and backwoods bunches, but they are not representative of the whole.

          I think my conversion as an adult kept me from many of the pronblems I see in fundy-ism–blindly following leaders , (The biggest problem IMO), shallow theology, legailism etc.

          I have seen the same in Pentacostalism and Reformed theology (doesn’t matter if it is Swaggart, Piper or Hyles)and it is usually from those raised in such an enviroment.

        6. @John, thanks for your reply! I agree with you that I desire a church that teaches God’s Word fully and expositionally and one whose members show changed lives. (I also agree that there’s TONS of problems in other denominations too.) I guess for me, and for a lot of readers here, we were never allowed to explore ANY other churches. I’ve never been to any church services BUT IFB services (unless you could count an Episcopal chapel at a private school I subbed at, an Acts29 conference, and my grandmother’s Catholic funeral). Of course, when your husband’s a pastor, you don’t get much opportunity to go elsewhere on Sunday! 🙂 I went straight from my parents’ KJVO church to BJU to marrying a guy who was a youth pastor at an IFB church at the time.

          In college, I was reading “The Screwtape Letters” – amazing, BTW – and my mom told me C. S. Lewis wasn’t worth reading because he was Anglican. It is stifling – absolutely stifling – to be raised in most IFB churches (and thankfully, I wasn’t in any of the man-of-God worshipping ones so I wasn’t even in the depths of the craziness). There is a lack of joy and a judgmentalism that kills the spirit. The focus on separation from everyone destroys Christian liberty and charity. The refusal to help the community lest we somehow slip into the “social gospel” keeps many churches from following Scripture. I DO think there are some IFB churches out there that get it right. But overall, I haven’t seen it very often.

          You had the opportunity to try out other denominations and churches and saw that they weren’t for you. You took up the IFB like a coat that finally fit! But for those of us raised in the IFB, it feels like a strait-jacket. I desire to be Scripturally faithful, and I want a life that is transformed by the Spirit of God. But I’m tired of looking down on EVERY other stripe of believer and saying they’re no good because they’re not exactly like us. (For example, at BJU, they used to have a list of “approved churches” you could attend. That’s fine. But NOW they’re calling them “Biblically-faithful churches”. That’s practically saying that any church not on that list is Biblically unfaithful, simply because BJU doesn’t agree with the church using contemporary music. I don’t want to be part of that anymore.)

        7. Pastor’s Wife is absolutely right that it makes a huge difference when a person started in Fundyland. I go to an IFB church and it’s just fine – not at all like the kind of IFB I was brought up in – and I’m quite sure that the key difference is that our pastor was saved as an adult and, like John, explored different denominations before settling in as an independent Baptist. He’s not a legalist or excessively judgmental and he sets the example in our church for compassion and kindness and tolerance of different viewpoints as long as they are not actually unbiblical.

        8. Yes I think it indeed make a difference.

          Interestingly, the assistant Pastor at my home Church RECOMMENDED “The Screwtape Letters” as in one one of the first Christian books I ever read !!
          He alos recommended “in His Steps” and “Pilgrioms Progress” –I loved them all.

          I think it is true that most readers here have never explored and seen the others out there. It makes a difference indeed.

          I have taken my children to different denominational services, and more ofthen than they leave with GREATER appreciation for IFB “ways” though sometimes we learn things done better elsewhere also.

          I guess that’s why so many comments on here make me so sad.

          Often the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

        9. @ pastor’s wife “You took up the IFB like a coat that finally fit! But for those of us raised in the IFB, it feels like a straight jacket.”

          I got a “Word of Knowledge” for you, and I’m not even pentecostal. You know how to turn a phrase, you need to write!!!!

        10. @John, you really have no idea what it was like to be raised IFB. I wish you could show more sympathy toward those of us who were unduly burdened and even scarred by extra-biblical traditions of men. You often seem annoyed instead of compassionate.

          I know my parents had the best of intentions, but their nit-picking legalism (remember, “The Screwtape Letters” which we both love is considered EVIL by them!) didn’t result in children who followed in their footsteps. I’m the only one of their kids still in church, and I’m a disappointment to them because I read the ESV, listen to Casting Crowns, and go to movies. Have you ever gone home for Christmas and been yelled at by your father because you dared mention that you liked “The Five Love Languages”? After all, “real Christians” don’t need psychology.

          (That sounds sort of trivial, I guess, especially when I know some people’s parents are drunk or abusive or hateful toward Christianity. But I guess that’s why it hurts so much: to have someone with whom I should have blessed fellowship instead spend all his time harping about how shallow Max Lucado is and how profane Mark Driscoll is and how Calvinistic John Piper is and how compromising Franklin Graham is. There’s a mean-spiritedness there that just doesn’t reflect the joy of the Lord. And I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in having that experience with IFB parents.)

          BTW, I also LOVED “In His Steps” which I read numerous times through high school as well as “Pilgrim’s Progress” which I loved when younger in a well-done version called “Little Pilgrim’s Progress.” I also was SO convicted and challenged by Corrie ten Boom’s “The Hiding Place”.

          @greg, thank you!

      2. John, I am happy you are part of SFL. You are beginning to humor your own kind… That’s the first step out of Fundyland. 😛

    1. Well for starters we are closer in relation to apes not monkeys. But really even that has nothing to do with evolution. At no time does evolution assert that we descended from monkeys or apes. It simply isn’t there. It is a wonderful made up myth that people then like to shoot down and feel accomplished when in reality the true science of evolution never said that to begin with. Funny how that works.

      1. Guess I don’t understand. I thought evolutionists taught that early cave people came from apes.

      2. The theory of evolution claims that Humans are related to to the (other) Great Apes (chimpanzees, bonabos, gorillas, orangutans) through a common ancestor– but humans did not descend from apes, nor did apes descend from humans. Even less so did we descend from (modern) monkeys. Going back farther, all primates (humans, apes, and monkeys) probably had a common ancestor, and going back still farther, all mammals probably had a common ancestor. But to say that humans and cats had a common ancestor is not to say that humans are descended from cats. The lines diverged very early on in the evolution of mammals.
        Does that make it any clearer?

        1. It’s clear to me that that is a lot of “probably’s”.

          Watch me do it. Birds on Galapagos Island evolved different beaks etc. There – proof that evolution happens (this is actually called adaptation, and yes, it happens). Now I have proof that evolution and changes in species occur, those birds on the island probably evolved from a common ancestor (a bird). That bird probably had variations amongst it’s kind which evolved from a common ancestory (a bird). So on and so forth back to Day Four when God created the birds. So, as a Creationist, I have ZERO problem with adaptation and evolution amongst species, but to say every living mammal has the same common ancestor is contrary to scripture. Birds are birds, fish are fish and never the twain shall meet (flying fish don’t exist. I refuse to believe it lol).

          Also, the theory is that we (apes and humans) descended from a common primate ancestor, which was ape like. So while saying “we came from monkeys” is dumb, saying we descended from apes is not far from what the theory actually states.

        2. Cut out the “probablies.” Evolutionary biologists don’t say “probably,” they say “must.” I added the “probablies” in a cowardly attempt to cover the gaps in my own knowledge of the science.

          All I can say is what I said before: We didn’t evolve from apes or monkeys, but we, apes, monkeys, and horses and mice all evolved from a common primitive mammal.

          If you can believe that God made a man out of dust and a woman from a rib (Genesis 2), then why can’t you believe that God could make men and women out of other animals?

          … And there are flying fish and swimming birds. I’ve seen both.

        3. I’m not going to speak for exIFB here, but personally, the reason I believe that God made man from the dust of the earth, and that humans did not descend from some mysterious “original mammal” is that the Bible says that God made man from the dust of the earth. If you claim to be a Christian, then why don’t you just believe what the Bible says?

        4. The Bible says that in one place. It says other things in other places (like the previous chapter, for instance).

        5. Since the Bible doesn’t say what raw materials God used for any of the other creatures, it could be that they were all made of the dust of the earth, too, of course. But then we’re back to people having a common descent with other animals. But since God also made the dust, that’s sort of a moot point.

          Frankly, the Bible was never intended as a science textbook, and it doesn’t work very well for that purpose. That’s not a failing of the Bible, because it wasn’t meant for that purpose. But I repeat myself. And I repeat myself.

        6. @Kat, I too am a creationist because that’s what the Bible says. If I get to heaven and find out that Genesis was an allegory and God used evolution, that’ll be fine with me, but here on earth I’m going with creationism. (Also I Peter 3:5 and John 1:3.)

        7. @Kat
          ” If you claim to be a Christian, then why don’t you just believe what the Bible says?”

          Wow that is an extremely loaded question. Listen if you learn one thing about the Evolutionary debate learn this…In the beginning God *created*. That is all *everything* else and I mean everything else we say about Gen 1 and the following is our interpretation. I believe what the Bible says. It says that God created. I’m good with that. But what you are asking me to do is believe your interpretation of how…that I’m not ok with.

          God created man from dust. On the one hand that could be quite literal. I could see the dust start to swirl and suddenly there is Adam, on the other hand it could be quite a literary device. Imagine describing something that takes place organically over millions of years only to eventually become Adam. From a literary perspective that would be an absolutely beautiful way to describe creation through evolution.

          I’ve shared my links before, but perhaps this is most foundational in my current belief on evolution http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf It is Tim Keller talking about this issue and how it isn’t contrary to scripture…however, he does low down the basis of what is foundational (Literal Adam). He also talks about some of the huge inconstancies with Gen 1 and Gen2…either one is literal and the other is not or they are contradictory. Take your pick…if Gen 1 is literal than Gen 2 is bunk…if Gen 1 is literary and Gen 2 is literal than evolution is not disproved as a viable avenue for God’s creative act.

          In the end I don’t blame anyone who believes in a literal 6 day creation. I believed it for a very long time. A few things I’d say. First don’t look down on the person who is working this issue out. This can be a huge issue for people who are struggling with science and the Bible. 2 bifurcate the issue. It doesn’t have to be an either or. For the longets time, even in IFB, I took the stance that we’ll find out in heaven. I believe that the Bible is sufficiently viable with both views so a person who believes in theistic evolution can be your friend. Finally be careful not to bifurcate the issue lest you unduly push people toward atheism. Now I grant you that if a person were to loose their faith over this issue there likely wasn’t much faith to begin with, but that doesn’t change the point. Making a person choose between faith and science is a dangerous thing. Evolving in Monkey Town would be a good book to check out on the issue. The writer almost lost her faith over the issue and many others have gone through the same thing. Science and Faith, Conflict or Complement? http://www.rededicate.org/media/audio/2010-02-28-pm.mp3

        8. @Mark R., I’m definitely interested in reading the link. I certainly want to give my brothers and sisters in Christ liberty to think differently than I. (It’s always a good stretch for me, having been raised pretty much thinking that anyone who didn’t believe exactly as we did was probably unsaved!) I promise not to say, “If you don’t believe in creationism, how can you even be saved?” but I’ll admit that it is rather off-putting to be told, “If you don’t believe in evolution, you probably believe in a flat earth too and don’t deserve to go the doctor because you reject science.” YOU didn’t say that, but I have heard it from evolutionists. It’s reductionist and demeaning and destroys MY Christian liberty and freedom of belief.

        9. Mark,

          Here’s a few massive, enormous problems with your statement.

          1) We’re not “interpreting” Genesis 1 at all. If you want to accept that God “created” everything, then THROW OUT the entire remainder of the chapter, then more power to you, but don’t expect me or any other believer to really accept you as a true Christian. The Bible says it, and that settles it, whether you believe it or not.

          2) Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two separate accounts, not conflicting stories. In Genesis 1, God is creating the world; in Genesis 2, God is recreating some of the critters in front of Adam, in the garden in Eden. The only contradiction is in your mind: the Bible is 100% absolutely perfect and correct.

          3) The Bible most certainly DOES say what God made the other critters out of; at least some of them: v. 11, the flora out of the earth (dirt); v. 20, the birds and water creatures out of water; and v. 24, the cattle (domesticable animale), creeping things (reptiles, amphibians, insects), and beasts of the field (predators) out of the earth.

          Your basic premise is that Science has proven evolution to be correct, when in fact it has absolutely no logical, scientific, or empirical defense whatsoever. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

        10. @MC1171611:
          Genesis doesn’t say what you say it says. It takes a lot of interpolation to reach your explanation of it.

        11. Probably nobody will be surprised when I say I agree with Mark Rosedale here. And I’ll just add to what he says that if you can’t accept the use of literary devices in the Bible, you must find the Bible impossible to read. When Jesus says to remove the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from your neighbor’s eye, do you think he means each person in his audience has a literal plank of wood in his or her eye?

        12. @MC1171611

          “We’re not “interpreting” Genesis 1 at all”

          Actually you are. You had to decide if Gen 1 is literal or not. Doing so makes it an interpretation. I have to do the same thing when I decide that it isn’t literal. The point is the one thing we do know, the one thing that we aren’t interpreting is *that* God created not how. The Bible isn’t a science book. Pure and simple. Now I understand why someone believes Gen 1 is literal, but you have a lot of explaining to do about Gen 2 at that point.

        13. I have a master’s degree in English so I am fully aware of literary devices! I don’t think Jesus was really a door either, even though He said He was. I can accept that some people look at Adam being formed from the dust of the earth as metaphoric writing, and certainly God viewing one day as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day shows that God views time differently than we do. I firmly believe that the Bible presents Adam as a real person though, not a symbol. I am interested in learning how Christians hold both faith in Christ AND belief in evolution; it’s not for me, but I can respect your freedom to disagree. But please don’t treat my belief in a literal creation as a sign that I can’t understand literature.

        14. “When a man approaches the Bible humbly, in the fear of God, believing that it is God’s word, submitting himself to its authority, and accepting it above his church, then that man can compare Scripture with Scripture and get the truth without interpreting anything.”-Dr.Peter S. Ruckman

          THAT is your problem: your stupid egos and “thinking [yourselves] to be wise” gets in the way. Therefore, it is of no surprise that you don’t understand the Bible: God has closed your minds to understanding.

          You have believed a lie, and rejected the Truth.

        15. @MC1171611

          What you need to realize and this goes for a lot of the IFB craziness. I don’t have to be wrong in order for you to be right. And you don’t have to be wrong in order for me to be right. Listen we can both wait until we get to heaven and we’ll find out there. I’ll personally walk up to you shake your hand and tell you I was wrong if we find that out in heaven. In the mean time don’t question my salvation just because we disagree.

          My point is that you cannot say definitively that Gen 1 is literal. When you do you base that solely on your interpretation of it. Interpreting scripture with scripture doesn’t negate that it is stills your interpretation vs your interpretation. This is hard for anyone to accept, but the true fact is that our entire religion… denomination…eschatology…mode of baptism is all based upon interpretation. It is the best that we’ve got, but it is flawed to the degree that man itself is flawed. The moment we choose to darken a church’s door, be it Baptist, Congregational, or Bible we’ve taken sides based upon our interpretation. We’ve chosen what we *THINK* is the best choice. But it is an interpretation nonetheless. That is a tough pill to swallow, but unfortunately it is true. We here mostly think IFB is crazy, but there is some other group who think we’re crazy while at the same time IFB looks at us like we’re crazy. It is the fact of life. We do our best, but we are only human.

      3. What seems to be avoided, overlooked or plain ingnored by Creationists is the full concept of the “survival of the fittest”. The way this has always been played out is the strong survive and the weak die off; however, if one REALLY reads Darwin, you will notice that “survival of the fittest” applies to the particular eco-system those who survive are in. Take that into consideration and OF COURSE the weak will die off because, has it has been rightly pointed out, they don’t ADAPT properly…so what’s the problem?

        Methinks Fundamentalist Christianity is *just as* or *more so* territorial than the best of the humanist teachings and the truth is, they knee-jerk react to one another.

        According to National Geographic, Chimps and humans share 96% of our DNA…Why would God make us so close to chimps? It’s a valid question that deserves a better answer than: “Itls a mystery”, “To test our faith”..so on and so forth.( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html )

        1. um…yeah, we ae pretty close to ALOT of animals….and alot of animals are even closer to each other that are way out of the evolutionary “line:”
          –that just shows a common CREATOR not a common ancestor.

    2. @Mark

      The point was that Evolution is not good science…or even very scientific at all, and that it most certainly is used as a weapon against Christianity, something you admitted in your comments.

      As far as Creation Science is concerened, the Bible is accurate in it’s claims and agrees with true science (though it is not a science book and uses plenty of poetical language, as we do today “Sunr ises” and so forth)
      If it is not, then it is entirely untrustworthy in matters of theology also.

      If Adama nd Eve are not literal then Jesus is a liar or a fool, since he said they were.

      I grew up an evolutionist from a young age, a big time dinosaur lover and reader. My cousin who was a professor at a college in the Northeast often filled me with evolution indoctrination. It kept me from being a Christian for many years, and still keeps him and many of my friedns from being Christians.

      They are incompatible.

      Are there Christians who believe evolution? No.
      Are there saved people who do? Sadly, yes.

      You cannot “follow Christ” and the world at the same time-i.e. be called a Christian by the world (As per Acts 11:38)
      Even the world will say so. Tell them you are an evolutionist and even they will say “Oh, well okay then-obviously your belif in evolution is bigger and we can deal with you since you aren’t a REAL Christian”
      If you are born again, you will go to heaven whne you die, but that doesnt mean you are or I are necessarily taking up Christs cross and following Him.

      BTW I have read book pro and con and most are indeed as you say written by athiests, and they are the ones who say it is okay.
      Isn’t that interesting? Hmmmm…..

      I will have to check out the ones you mention.

      1. I was really enjoying the level-headed discourse on evolution above, and then John had to throw in the “if you believe in evolution you’re not a Christian” comment. Thanks, John, you just freed up all my Sundays and a tenth of my paycheck.

        Evolution is good science — it learns and, yes, evolves as it gathers new data. Which does prove your argument that it is incompatible with Fundamentalism. So you win again.

      2. @John,

        “the point was that Evolution is not good science…”

        I don’t think you’ve really studied the science then. It is extremely scientific. That animals evolve is scientific. Why do we need to vaccinate against new strains of the cold virus every season? Because it evolved. The science is absolutely there. What you’re doing is confusing Dawkins use of evolution to create his religiosity as evolution itself. Dawkins is not good science in that he is using science to say something that science cannot and does not say (you looked at my linked book right). Dawkins is as scientific as Ken Ham which is to say that neither is scientific at all they are philosophers who choose to use “science” to try and prove their point. To the degree that you conflate the philosophy with the science is the degree to which you’ll fail to realize what the true science is.

        “the Bible is accurate in it’s claims and agrees with true science”
        This is true only in the point that God himself is the author of science and therefore totally agrees with science. But I’ve been saying unfortunately we must understand the Bible through the lens of our own interpretation. And interpretation can and often does get in the way of reality and or science. In Keplers time it was theologically correct to say that the universe revolves around the earth. In fact Kepler and hundreds of other scientists were deemed heretics for daring to say that science suggest we revolve around the sun. This bad interpretation continued for quite some time until finally the church was faced with the problem. Science is wrong and my theology is right or my theology was based upon faulty interpretation and it must be changed. Now I’m not so bold as to say the same thing is happening today, but one must acknowledge that 6 day literal creation only holds on the basis of interpretation (just like geocentric astronomy). I believe room must be given to allow people room to explore and understand. What is science for but to reveal our God and help us understand him better and thereby loving him more. My God is not so fragile as to be derailed by Dawkins or science itself. He is the author of science and he will always shine through even if science or scientists are unwilling to recognize him.

        “If Adama nd Eve are not literal then Jesus is a liar or a fool, since he said they were.

        Read the Tim Keller link. Adam and Eve do need to be literal people. I’ve never said otherwise. Evolution doesn’t either.

        “It kept me from being a Christian for many years, and still keeps him and many of my friedns from being Christians.
        They are incompatible.
        Are there Christians who believe evolution? No.

        Sadly the thing that kept you from the faith you are now using to keep other people from faith. My point is that you are bifurcating the issue and you don’t need to. I appreciate where you come from, but now you are telling me that I either believe the science or have faith. It doesn’t have to be that way, it really doesn’t. I attend Park Street Church in boston. We have professors, students, and scientists from harvard, MIT, BU and top scientific firms in the area. They are good at their job. They are devout Christians who also believe in evolution. I rub shoulders with them every week. These are geneticists who realized that our genetic makeup points to common ancestry. Among many of the other sciences. Of course there are also people who are in those fields and at my church who don’t believe that God used evolution to create. And they are good at what they do and we all worship together the same God. Seriously don’t do to me what people did to you. I choose both and by making it anything else is doing exactly what was done to you by Dawkins et al.

        “I will have to check out the ones you mention.”

        Yes please do. Check out Absence of mind. You won’t like the end conclusion because she is obviously an atheist, but she takes people like Dawkins to task for bifurcating the issue. Also Evolving in Monkey town is good albeit light.

        Finally read the Tim Keller piece I linked. That is extremely helpful given that he is an orthodox Christian explaining in great detail the issues at hand. Finally I also linked to a sermon by Francis Collins (head of NIH) that was given at my church. Listen to his sermon, it is essentially his testimony, and oh what a beautiful testimony it is.

        1. @Mark, “I believe room must be given to allow people room to explore and understand. What is science for but to reveal our God and help us understand him better and thereby loving him more. My God is not so fragile as to be derailed by Dawkins or science itself. He is the author of science and he will always shine through even if science or scientists are unwilling to recognize him.”

          Where’s a Like button when I need it?

        2. @Mark


          I appreciate your opinions and investigations, as well as your ability to discuss without resorting to insults, but I do not think you realize the gravity of such an error as evolution.

          Evolution has so many holes in it, it casts a polka dot shadow.

          It is the only “science” where you can become world famous for merely having an opinion, because it cannot be tested or repeated.
          The theory of evolution is nothing but creation mythology for atheists.
          If the theory could “stand on it’s own two legs” so to speak, there wouldn’t be such efforts to silence all it’s opponents.

          If God could make man of the
          dust, He could certainly make him from an ape with even less of a transformation. If
          Gen. 2:7 would have used the word ape instead of dust all Christians would accept
          evolution as orthodox doctrine. There would be nothing incompatible between the
          Bible and evolution if, in fact, God did make man by that process. The point is, the
          Bible does say dust and not ape. Neither mud nor monkey is a very flattering origin,
          so we do not insist on believing man’s origin is from the dust because it is more
          dignified, but simply because this is what the Word of God says. That ought to be
          the basic concern of the believer. It should be to discover what it is the Bible says,
          and then he can considers its relation to all kinds of other questions.

          (2Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

          Private meaning alone, or isolated. Scripture must be read with scripture.

          I am supposing you to belive in theistic evolution, but Mark if there is any death of any kind before the fall, then the Bible is incorrect.

          Saying something is science doesn’t make it science anymore than saying something is scriptural doesn’t make it scriptural.

          (Mat 7:16-20) “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
          Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

        3. sorry about the gaps and gaffes in my posts…I am trying to use html code to make my comments a little better, but it’s a work in progress….I am “evolving” 😀

        4. @John,

          Just so you know John I do realize the gravity of my stance. To be clear I believe that Evolution is a valid science. IOW I believe Evolution exists. I also believe that evolution can and does account for much of the diversity in the world. Plants, animals change. They adapt through time and to that degree evolve. And that is the essence of evolution. It is observable and repeatable in that we see it happening even today. The difference between the cold virus evolving each season and Lucy to Human is the lens of time. The science itself remains the same. Fossil records, DNA, among observable data point to change/evolving/adaptation. Now to what degree (ie did we come from single celled creatures all the way to today) is a different question and outside of science. Science says animals evolves. Science says that they could have evolved from single cells on up. Philosophers say that science means God doesn’t exist. You’ve permanently conflated the two in your mind. You have to get passed who abuses evolution and get to the real hard science. It isn’t full of so many holes. So I believe in evolution…is that how God created? I think so, is that the only way he could have created? I’m not sure it matters. That God created is what matters. Anyone denying him as creator ceases to be orthodox in my view.

          “The theory of evolution is nothing but creation mythology for atheists.”

          Not true in the least. Darwin was not an atheist. And as an aside YEC is not universal throughout the history of the church. In fact YEC and flood theory didn’t come about until the mid 20th century and then by 7th day adventist and as a reaction to evolution. Just like Galileo we are in a time when science and some people’s interp are conflicting. It is little wonder that the church might react. The question is who is right and who is wrong. Were the people who believed in the geocentric model saved? Absolutely, but so were the people, despite what church fathers said, who believed in the heliocentric model.

          “The point is, the
Bible does say dust and not ape.”
          And the point I’m making is are we speaking literally or figuratively. Apparently God had to be talking literally so when he says dust he means dust and since he *literally* didn’t say ape then evolution is bunk. But what if dust is a nice picturesque way to say naturally over millions of years? You have to pick an interpretation. You chose literal and I respect that, I didn’t.

          Unfortunately the Bible says what we interpret it to say. Systematic theology is nothing but a fancy word for this guys interpretation. The various councils and edicts were so that the church could settle on interpretations. The Bible says what God wants it to say, but we are all human and prone to error. Was the Bible wrong when it said the universe revolves around the earth (geocentric) or was our interpretation wrong? I think you know the answer. The Bible has either been wrong in the past or we realize that our interpretations dictate what “the Bible says.” Understanding that is tough to take because it means that you could be wrong…it seems very post modern because now the Bible is “less authoritative.” But really it is the opposite. The Bible was always right, but sinful man often gets in the way.

          “Mark if there is any death of any kind before the fall, then the Bible is incorrect.”
          Say what? Hmmmmmmm Where do you get this? I mean I grew up Fundy and this was a foundational element that drove me away from YEC.

          “Saying something is science doesn’t make it science anymore than saying something is scriptural doesn’t make it scriptural.”
          The opposite is true as well. I’ve heard you say evolution has holes, but saying it doesn’t mean evolution isn’t true. It cuts both ways. The truth is I could tediously go through all of the reasons why evolution is true (I’ve even mentioned a few) and for some reason I’m not sure it would matter to you. In fact, for some reason the fact that an orthodox Christian is telling you that Evolution and God can exist gets totally ignored. Instead somehow evolution is an atheists invention to disprove God and where I fit in all of this…and the thousands of other Christians who believe the same thing…I’ll never know.

          But judging by your quoted verse I’m assuming that I must be a sheep in wolves clothing. I’m a closet atheist who believes in evolution and you can tell because my fruit is that I believe in evolution. Honestly, I had to leave IFB because my intellect couldn’t handle the cognitive dissonance. I’m not saying that a person in IFB is an idiot…but for me I couldn’t ignore what my mind was telling me. It is similar with this topic. The science is there if you look at the real science (not the Dawkins philosophy) and I can’t just ignore it…I won’t. If that means I have to choose between my faith and science I would, but fortunately I don’t have to…neither do you.

        5. Mark,

          No I do not Mark. You have certainly been “out in the open” with your ideas and interpretations. You have been very upfront overall.

          So then, you agree that death preceded the fall and that Paul/Jesus’ comments are allegorical?

          “Mark if there is any death of any kind before the fall, then the Bible is incorrect.”
          Say what? Hmmmmmmm Where do you get this? I mean I grew up Fundy and this was a foundational element that drove me away from YEC.

          Why Mark? Why did it drive you away?

          Why does it matter where I “get this”?

          (BTW It’s from the Bible Romans 5 and others passages. Just because others have read the Bible and agree doesn’t make the truth somehow suspect.)

          It is illogical as well as unscriptural to say that evolution brought forth man. You can’t have it both ways.

          It is noticable that your comments are loaded down with modern “and also” cognitive dissonance…you seem to want to have everything both ways. I ran into this repeatedly at secular college, especially among professors.

          I have met many belivers who try to reconcile the irreconcilible, and all end up being forced to be liberal in ALL Bible interpretation.

        6. Mark – Thank you for taking the time to explain things in such great detail. As you said in one of your comments, it takes a big tent to accept both scripture and the science of evolution. Not many people have that big of a tent.
          I read the linked article from Keller. To accept the content, one has to do away with their pre-conceived ideas. That goes for fundy, non-fundy and atheist alike. It certainly was an enlightening article.
          People from both extremes (fundies and militant atheists) will shoot down any discussion that involves concessions on their core beliefs. It is the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going lalalalalalala. No matter how much sense an article or blog comment may make (like yours) it is immediately dismissed because “you belive in evolution” or “what’s this God stuff”. It really is a shame.
          The fact of the matter is, evolution is not a subject a person can understand by reading one article or even one book. It is so involved and crosses so many disciplines of science it is hard to explain it to the average lay person. That is a problem I have had with scientists for years; their inability to properly diseminate their findings so that the general population can understand them. With evolution, this is extremely pronounced.

        7. @John,

          With regards to death before the fall it depends upon whether Gen 2:17 is talking about physical or spiritual or perhaps both. But I find it highly illogical to conclude that there was no death before the fall. Probably the biggest inconstancy if you take all of Gen literally. Like you said God didn’t say we descended from Apes if he had then you’d have no problem affirming evolution. In this case, Death, it is the lack of information that bothers me. First when Adam and Eve ate of the tree they didn’t die. In fact they lived a full and vibrant life. Secondly there is no record, outside of the snake, that during the curse God changed his creation in any drastic way. He gave specific curses that easily tag on to what the creation was already like. But there is no mention of the anatomical and physiological changes that *would* have been required at the time of the curse. If God was so detailed oriented in Gen 1 so that we would know the exact science of creation one would think he’d be the same here. The fact that he doesn’t would lead me to believe that Animals and humans function much the same way they do now. IOW lions had sharp teeth, and a physiological system to digest it. Then there is the issue of overcrowding. Again God didn’t suddenly give animals sexual organs at the curse. They already had it. Imagine the consequence of a world without death if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned. Again that isn’t to say that there was death per se, it is just that there are some major problems chief of which is if Gen 1 and 2 are so literal and detailed why isn’t the curse?

          Romans 5 and other passages are just the same Adam sinned and that sin now condemns us to hell by default. And that is exactly what Paul is talking about. And it matters where you get it because I was curious. I want to know for my own sake. I’ll admit if I was wrong. Perhaps there is a hidden gem that I haven’t run into. Maybe there is a passage that says there was no death before the fall. But alas all I’ve found is this. If you interpret scripture a certain way then there is no death…but that is *if* you interpret it a certain way.

          In the end I don’t know that you need to have it both ways. What I do want is first that God created and secondly that Evolution is a science. Can evolution give an account of the exact beginnings of life on this earth? No and it never will, but the science itself is valid and until we have evidence suggesting something else it should be explored to its fullest.

          The *only* reason why the science of evolution would be a threat is if you insist that Gen 1 is the literal all inclusive exact account of creation. Since Gen 1 and 2 don’t agree and the genre of 1 suggests it might not be literal I have a hard to coming to that conclusion…but that doesn’t mean I believe evolution is how God created by default. It is just one of the ways he could of…just like miraculous creation as well.

  12. I enjoyed the two songs.

    I wonder if the young women still support what they sang about 38 years ago… (probably not).

  13. Songs made me sad.

    Reading this thread made me sadder.

    Trail of Blood is cute, but only informative if you are completely historically and theologically ignorant. In that case, the chart is very helpful.

    1. She went on to record the gospel classics “Don’t touch me there” and “you’re gonna miss a whole lot of love”.

      1. “Don’t Touch Me There” has to be one of the most unfortunate ideas ever for a pop love song. When I saw the title, I thought it was about … well, whatever you imagine can’t be far wrong.

        1. Is that the same ‘Don’t Touch Me There’ as the punk rock classic by the Tubes?

          The smell of burning leather
          As we hold each other tight
          As our rivets rub together
          Flashing sparks into the night
          At this moment of surrender darling
          If you really care
          Don’t touch me there

          More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/t/tubes/#share

  14. I’m patting myself on the back because I detected OHD’s ruse about a quarter way down. I figured that no one could actually be that stupid.

  15. I was reminiscing yesterday that I actually had the _Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter_ as my science text in seventh grade. Sigh. . . . How depressing.

    But wait — that was Jerry Falwell talking? How gross. I don’t know much about the guy, tbh, except that he was born and bred in the Sword of the Lord stuff. But gee whiz.

    Both songs make my skin crawl.

  16. It’s funny how the radio guy says that they’ve had lots of requests for that song, but then turns around and say that none of the audience has likley ever heard the song.

    Way to sing of Christ, girls. Keep on standing up and singing of the Gospel. Oh, wait…

  17. I’m kinda new around here and I basically “get it” (the site) but this one has thrown me for a loop. I seriously liked both songs and completely agree with the messages of both songs. Is something wrong with me? Also I haven’t seen it mentioned here but the absolute best site I have ever found to support creation science is “Answers in Genesis” I’m talking serious science. They completely “debunk” many of the myths that evolutionists put forth as science. Before you start attacking me and think I need to “evolve” abit more from my fundy brainwashing days please have a look at the site.

    1. I think people object to the first song because it oversimplifies the theory of evolution, and then makes fun of people who believe it. It’s FUN to make fun of people, but it doesn’t build bridges. (I am a creationist, BTW!)

    2. Simply put the first song creates a straw man that doesn’t exists. Which, and don’t take it as an attack, is exactly what all of Answers in Genesis does. Good science does not start with, “I have a conclusion that cannot be proved through science so I will therefore disprove any science against my conclusion thereby proving my point.” IOW science doesn’t work that way. Answers in Genesis is not science.

      I challenge you to really actually learn what Evolution the real science says. Not what Ken Ham says it says, and not what Dawkins makes it say. Study the real science. Evolution has nothing to do with evolving from a monkey.

      1. I don’t think it’s intended to be all scientific. Like how Atheists don’t bother to find out what Christians actually believe, but say stuff like

        “Christians think God is a big old grandfather in the sky handing out lollypops and hellfire to the good and bad kids”.

        That’s a “strawman” that doesn’t exist. Also, debating anyone that uses the term “strawman” is a waste of time. It’s likely their entire argument is built on rebuttal using “logical fallacies”.

        1. exIFB

          Precisely so. With so many “Scare cows” running around, what is needed is some fire.

        2. exIFB – The issue cannot be dealt with with a few hand waves. I intend to cover it bit by bit on my own blog during the next couple of months (no promises though). One post is already up. I invite you to read it through, carefully.

          I’m an ex-YEC’ist.

      2. I also already said I have no issue with evolution as it is observable. Adaptations occur. But there has never been observed an entirely new kind of animal from evolution. The magic ingredient is time, which opens up the doorway to all kinds of “probablys”, “maybes” and “must haves”. The fact is, animals adapt to their surroundings. So do humans. People who live in high altitude have larger lungs. Black moths will outlive white moths if the environment is more suited to their survival, thus resulting in more black moths than white moths. Birds will, over time, develop longer beaks in order to eat, and the ones with shorter beaks will die off, being unable to eat, in certain areas of the world etc etc.

        But noone has ever observed a new kind of animal. Changes, sure. Call it evolution if you want. But a new kind of animal? never. No evidence to support it. When there is some “new evidence” it gets massive media coverage, but you never read about it when they finally say “It’s not what we originally thought it was”.

        Here is the real strawman. You are saying “I dismiss evolution blah blah blah”, but I don’t. I am dismissing the fairy tales that accompany the actual science of observing adaptations that occur amongst species.

        The science is this – Adaptations are observable. The fairy tale is this – millions of years ago (billions, whatever), primordial soup, life, cells split, cells split, fast forward, simple life form, fast forward, another life form, this life form begins to adapt and change and somewhere, it must have split into other life forms which continued to adapt and change until we get the wide variety of animals today, all from a common ancestor or ancestors. There is no science there. It’s all assumption.

        Yes, adaptation is observable. Anyone that denies this is silly. Darwin made a big deal out of it. But then he goes on with fairy tales, page after page, of probably’s could haves, maybes, must haves, because he had no evidence to support his theory other than the fact that yes, animals do change and adapt to their environment.

        The facts are true (duh) : Animals change
        The hypothesis is wrong : Since animals change, we must have all descended from a common ancestor that changed over time.

        1. For Christians, there is also the theological issue.

          God said in Romans that sin entered the world by the disobedience of one man (Adam). And death entered by sin.

          Evolution, as most people understand it, teaches that for millions of years, there was death, until man entered the world (and then there was more death).

          I cannot comprehend theistic evolution. I understand atheists believing it. But a God who IS life, who is the life giver, why would he spend millions of years using death as his tool of eliminating the weak, until His image was born – man (who, out of all this death, was born perfect, and in the image of God )- who then went and stuffed it all up anyway.

          Theistic Calvinist Evolutions are even weirder because God just invested 20 million years into death, ordaining that His greatest creation, which would take 20 million years of death to accomplish and bring forth, would stuff if it up a few days later anyway.

        2. “But a God who IS life, who is the life giver, why would he spend millions of years using death as his tool of eliminating the weak, until His image was born”

          exIFB – I have asked asked the question, “if God is so loving why did he create hell?” The answer was given to me by fundies (in a rather indignant and condescending manner) was that man cannot imagine or think like God. It is God’s way, not man’s way.
          I would answer your question in a similiar fashion but adding “if your God is who you say He is, He can anything in anyway He wants”. Including taking millions if not billions of years to bring life to man in His image.

        3. @exIFB

          Those are some very good points. In fact they aren’t easy questions to answer at all. Animals adapt and evolve. What Darwin was looking at was adaptations that are easy to see. I’ve been to the Smithsonian in Washington. They had an exhibit of horses heads over a huge period of time. It was interesting to see the changes that occurred and they were able to give some of the reasons for those changes. Time makes evolution both probable and improbable. This is why really I only push that it is a valid science not that this is what accounts for the life on this earth. Evolution should be taught and she be learned by anyone interested in science. We shouldn’t view the real science with such skepticism. But when it ventures into the world of “in the beginning” now we’ve gone outside of science and into myth and fairytale. But back to the time issue. The question is would we recognize a transitional figure if we saw it? It is sort of like when you see pictures of yourself from 12 years ago. Man you look a lot different and did I really put on that much weight. Or another example is when you see your family after a couple of years. Boy does everyone look and act differently. Now add about 9 0’s and that is what we are talking about. It is likely that we won’t ever find something that looks wildly different because the change is so gradual. But over time that change eventually leads to something else. You still don’t have to believe it, but that is how it works. The difference between the adaptation you do understand and evolution between species is 0. It is the same process and the same science for both.

          But really the common ancestor is easier to understand when you study genetics and the genome. If we don’t have a common ancestor God reused a lot of code, so to speak, to make us all. Could he have done that? Oh for sure…could he have not? absolutely.

      3. So Mark Rosedale is the arbiter of what constitutes “good science” Wow, I’m getting my money’s worth on this website! Btw thank you for condescending to this lowly website and sharing your incredible knowledge with us, come to think of it how can a great man of science, such as yourself have time to do so much blogging? I figured you would be off discovering new planets or something “scientific.”

        Answers in Genesis admits to not having “ALL” the answers and I appreciate their honesty. They have destroyed many “accepted” notions of convential science. Their staff is incredible, with some of the very best scientific minds in the world.

        Now I know I have been sarcastic here, which doesn’t help win friends and influence people, but Mark I hope you have a glimmer here that the world of science and knowledge does not begin and end with you. Right back at you, you are the one that needs to study the “real” science.

        Closing with the good ol KJV, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called.”

        Knew those fundy years would come in good for something.

        1. @greg,

          I am by no means the end all be all. I’m just voicing what I’ve learned. Take it or leave it. Knowledge doesn’t start or end with me, but it certainly doesn’t start or end with Ken Ham either. They are about as scientific as sesame street is mathematical. Which is to say that they get things right and you can learn things there, but you wouldn’t wouldn’t want to learn discrete math from them.

          All I’ll add is this. Disproving evolution doesn’t prove you right. And there are some major issues that need to be worked out in the church. Looking at the history over this issue saddens me. Essentially we just buried our heads in the sand. Science is finding some great things and all we can do is stand back and hope our interpretation of a passage is correct. If you really want to change the culture you need to be in there doing the science. Answers in G. isn’t doing that. They’ve removed themselves from the scientific community in an effort to disprove something. That isn’t how science works. And it is sad watching brilliant minds be wasted on a fools errand and on sesame street style research.

      1. @Scorpio,

        So God didn’t mean it when He had Paul pen Romans 5?

        Gen 1 and 2 must be true in order for John 3:16 to be true.

        Hell is absolutly justifiable within the realms of ethics and logic, without resorting to “Because God said so” though that is true also.

      2. Also you say

        “exIFB – Some atheists are ex-Christians so we know what christians believe.”

        I wasn’t aware you were an athiest, not surprised though.

        You also must know then that according to the Bible, regardless of fundy-sim, that you were never a Christian to begin with.

        I am an ex-athiest, which one can be—but you cannot be an ex-Christian. If Christ dwells in you, He doesn’t leave.
        Ex-professing Christian, sure. But not an ectual ex-Christian

        (1Jn 2:19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

        1. John – Ahhh the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I am not surprised, I get that alot. But no matter. I have learned that there is nothing that I can say that would be able to convince you as to the condition of my heart regarding matters of faith.

      3. I do believe every word of the scripture including every word in Genesis. I believe in a young earth and would not fight anyone about it. Again I have examined it fairly closely, as closely as someone w/out a strong scientific background can. Conventional Science is woefully lacking and oftentimes outright deceitful about origins. Answers in Genesis point out these failings, therefore they don’t make alot of friends in conventional science circles, thus the above slander. I looked seriously at the claims of evolution and I just don’t have the faith to believe it.

        1. greg – I don’t find the slander you speak of. AIG is essentialy a culture war outfit that makes millions out of the “culture wars”. They have been critisized from within creationist circles. I read their material for years, and I found two types of articles/papers related to my field of study: Credible ones, that do not actually disprove anything, and ones of no substance whatsoever.

          What AIG does can be likened to quibling about the grammer in a sentence or 2 ….. in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I strongly suggest yopu go the linke I gave earlier, and educate yourself – in case you missed them, at least look at this one: http://geochristian.wordpress.com/

          For a discussion on a recent publication on how first century Judaism and the early church viewed the first chapters of Genesis, read the following link – I just saw it earlier today:


        2. please give them a call and let them know about all of those millions, they haven’t been able to find them yet, hey maybe all of those millions are in the same place as the “missing link”

  18. They are incompatible.

    One of the fundy arguments that really bunches my fruit of the looms.

    “I believe that faith in Christ and praying the sinners prayer saves you…but if you do that AND believe in Evolution..you’re not saved”

  19. I had an idea OHappyDay was faking like CMG when he used the Acts 27 verse 😛 And then the mention of the Trail of Blood and following Hyles and Schaap sealed it.

    Awesome read: OHappyDay included just about every fundy cliche there is 😀

  20. Oh so beautiful!!! They sound just like the Ronettes, the Ponytails, and the other 1950s/early 1960s girl bands!!

    Now does that make it the ➡ Appearance of Evil/UnGodly Christian Rock N Roll Music ➡ or does that make it ➡ THE OLD PATHS??? ➡


  21. ok, now I still have The Ecumenical Movement song stuck in my head, and will have it in my memory bank of songs to have stuck in my head for the rest of my life.

Comments are closed.