“the Word of God” or “the word of me”…

Recently I received a comment which you can check out HERE if you feel so inclined.  I wanted to alert those few people who are gracious enough to visit my blog about this comment and about the rebuttal. The comment was friendly enough, which I appreciated very much. But clearly the commenter called The Word of Me [I have just noticed the irony in their name!] has problems with the creationist’s modus oporandi.

As many of you know, I am limited in time because of life which has changed in a major way for me in the last year. So, I thought I would go straight to the people who defend the creationist model professionally with the claims made by “The Word of Me”. It was Lita Cosner Information Officer of  Creation Ministries International who replied in only TWO days. Thankyou Lita 😀

It is clear that “The Word of Me”  and I disagree in one key area;  that being ‘Historical Science’. ‘Historical Science’ is not observable and is therefore  subjective science. ‘Historical Science’ is very different from ‘Operational Science’ which is observable. Again, the obvious area of disagreement is between ‘Historical Science’ only. When it comes to ‘Historical Science’ it is the interpretation and inferences about the past that has laid down a preconceived presupposition. Basically ‘Historical Science’ cannot be proved and it rests heavily on theory only. We, as imperfect humans, much try and figure out which lens to look through; the ‘Word of God’ or the ‘word of me’! Sorry couldn’t resist the pun of words 🙂

So, without further ado. The Word of Me” starts out by saying this. [ Please note that everything is italics is from “word of me” and the rebuttal is as is from Lita Cosner]:

The Word of Me writes: Yeah, I think the majority of scientists or science oriented lay-people do think YEC’s are kind of crazy lot. There is so much implied in your stance that flies in the face of known facts…yes, I know you reject the facts and have your own group of scientists who mostly also have a Doctor of Divinity degree. And I purely know that nothing I say will convince you otherwise. Of course you already know that the science that I back is testable and provable by 99% of the scientists in the relevant fields…whereas your scientists (1%) cannot provide evidence that is testable or checkable or peer-reviewed…and that is fine by me, the world needs diversity. 🙂 But I feel the need to address a couple of the things you are writing here…in a friendly way.

The Word of Me writes: Living Journey said: “There are fossils and there are layers and the list goes on and on and on. How we choose to interpret why and how those fossils and layers got there in the first place is speculation on BOTH sides!”
You probably know that the science of stratigraphy was actually started in England in the 1700’s and has been proved over and over again ALL over the world…there really is no speculation about its viability or truth. It truly is proven, but I know you reject it.

Reply: But how the fossil evidence is interpreted is quite another matter.  It seems to me that billions of fossils preserved in rock laid down by water all over the world fits much better with our belief in the Bible’s record of a global watery cataclysm than the gradual burial of organisms over millions of years.  Also, there are ephemeral markings between layers that could not have been exposed to the elements for millions of years, e.g. animal tracks.  This shows a lack of time between the layers.  So do ‘flat gaps’ or ‘paraconformities’. To explain, think of the jagged surface of most landscapes, due to erosion. Streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys. But often the layers below them are completely smooth. Yet they are often claimed to have been deposited millions of years apart. But if the top of each layer had been exposed for millions of years, it should be as jagged as the surface.

The Word of Me writes: I know** at least 40 scientists that would strongly challenge that DNA and any kind of genetics leads to an ID view or in any way proves any of the tenets of ID. ID is just a concept that has no scientific work behind it…no one is experimenting or making and testing hypothesis and trying to prove any of the assertions some ID people have put forward.

Reply: It would be great if there was some substance to reply to, rather than just an ambiguous argument from authority and a couple of assertions.  The founders of every major area of science were creationists, and belief in God allowed science to flourish where it was stillborn in other cultures (see http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science).
Michael Behe of course wrote his book about the ‘irreducible complexity’ of life parts and forms and the need for an Intelligent Designer to make them and was shortly thereafter proven verrrryyy wrong. There are other examples out there on the web and I won’t bore you with repeating them.

Perhaps you could have given some of the ways in which ID was proven “verrrryyy” wrong.  Argument from the Internet is not valid.

The Word of Me writes: I keep seeing and hearing from the creationists and YEC’s and fundamentalists that evolution is dead or somehow being proven wrong on a daily basis, but the relevant scientists seem to know nothing about this assertion, and go about their work still believing it and using it to predict and hypothesize and prove its relevance to our world…but, I know you reject it.

Reply: It would be nice, once again, if you gave examples.  Creationists have used our theory to make scientific predictions as well.  See http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young and http://creation.com/rate-group-reveals-exciting-breakthroughs.  So if the mark of a legitimate scientific theory is being able to make accurate predictions based on it, creationism qualifies.

The Word of Me writes: Another thing I know you reject is the current 40+ methods of dating artifacts and materials and rocks even though they support each other when cross checked and even though there are some YEC’s and fundamentalists that actually work in the field and are confident that the methods work…but, I know you reject it.

Reply: There are problems with the assumptions involved in the various dating methods.  See http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf and http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure.  Rather, over 100 dating methods indicate a much younger age than goo-to-you evolution requires http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The Word of Me writes: You write about Richard Dawkins and his talking about “Panspermia” and seemingly ridicule the idea and Dawkins admitting the possibility. He is not necessarily promoting ID here, at least not in the way you think about it. Another vision of Panspermia is that life, in its simplest form, was propagated by meteors or comets (and we know the earth was bombarded by billions of them over time) and then evolved from that point over billions of years. There is nothing at all illogical about this concept and many scientists do accept this as a possibility. The thought of an advanced race doing the seeding I guess could be a possibility, but I would think the meteor/comet theory is more viable (travel time vs. lifetimes).

Reply: Bacteria on a comet couldn’t survive entry into earth’s atmosphere.  See http://creation.com/panspermia-theory-burned-to-a-crisp-bacteria-couldn-t-survive-on-meteorite.

The Word of Me writes: The trouble with the religionist ID is that it depends on a god who performs magic, and science does not deal with magic…at all.

Reply: No, creationism involves a God who usually upholds His creation with what we describe as natural laws.  But such a God is capable of adding to these laws. To discount the effects of His actions is a serious deficiency, because natural processes would not be able to explain His actions.  The Biblical view, unlike the evolutionary one, explains the idea of natural laws in the first place, due to a non-capricious God of Order, who is nevertheless not restricted to His normal means.  See http://creation.com/miracles-and-science

The Word of Me writes: Those same scientists reject religion and the Bible solely on the basis of the impossibility of magic.

Reply: At least my miracle stories involve a supernatural Person who is able to perform those acts.  You’re the one who believes everything exploded out of nothing, assembled itself into a universe containing a solar system with a planet conducive for life, and that molecules on that planet assembled themselves into the first cell (whether that first cell originated on earth or another planet), with incredibly complex machinery and a vast amount of information encoded in DNA.  Then you believe that this cell multiplied and its descendants eventually gave rise to all the vast forms of life we find on earth today.  Special creation of the various life forms seems more plausible than such a run of blind luck.

The Word of Me writes: Magic has never been demonstrated or proven to work, now or in our past, in our world, but I know you accept it.

Reply: Materialistic bigotry!  There is one supernatural event that has not been explained away yet—the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without which the success of Christianity in the first century makes no sense.  See http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html.   Your argument is circular: you don’t trust the miracles because you distrust the reports, but the only reason to distrust the reports is that they tell of miracles.  G.K. Chesterton rightly pointed out: “The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”

The Word of Me writes: Boy does Panspermia ever have ramification for religion. 🙂 All that Adam and Eve and Original Sin (which Paul invented) and humans being so special in god’s eyes stuff just goes out the window.

Reply: Phew, good for Christians, then, that panspermia has been conclusively ruled out as an origin for life on earth.

The Word of Me writes:You know there is a line in the Bible where Jesus says to ‘suffer not a witch to live’ and the early church took and killed up to 3 million poor people before they realized that witch’s are not possible because there is NO magic. And the same early church killed un-numbered poor people in the various Inquisitions, who they thought were guilty of such crimes as heresy and blasphemy and atheism and other essentially non-crimes. That’s neither here nor there in what we are discussing here, but it just bothers me, and I have to vent occasionally. 🙂

Reply: The Inquisition executed fewer people in three centuries than the State of Texas, and only had authority over professing Christians.  The witch trials hardly decimated the population of Europe either, your numbers are obscenely inflated, and your comments reek of modern bigotry. And the Salem witch trials killed fewer than 20 before they were halted—by Christians.  In a society where it was believed that witches could exercise influence over the spiritual realm to harm others (whether or not they actually could do so is irrelevant), it was necessary to punish people claiming to be such for the good of the community.   Compare the hundreds of millions killed last century by atheopathic regimes like the Stalinist Soviets, Mao’s Chinese and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, as well as the evolution-inspired Holocaust.

The Word of Me writes:  “…doomsday prophet astrophysicist Stephen Hawking wants mankind to respond to the problems of global warming by colonizing the Moon or Mars evidently forgetting that the Moon’s daytime temperature is over 200 degrees (107 C) and that neither location has liquid water or oxygen.”
We have already figured out that we can get oxygen from moon rock and how to do it, and recent explorer surveys have found frozen water on the moon’s surface. I don’t know about Mars at this time, but will research it.

Sources would be great.



Lita Cosner
Information Officer
Creation Ministries International


2 thoughts on ““the Word of God” or “the word of me”…

  1. Hi Ms. Cosner, thank you for your well thought out reply to my reply. Because of the length of it I will take a day or two to answer it. However I happen to have the moon stuff on a readily available file. links follow.

    It’s official: There’s water on the moon—and a “significant amount” of it, too, members of NASA’s recent moon-crash mission, LCROSS, announced today.

    Moon dust is a mixture of many different minerals, and nearly all of them contain oxgyen in considerable abundance. One of the most common lunar minerals is ilmenite, a mixture of iron, titanium, and oxygen. (Ilmenite also often contains other metals such as magnesium which we’ll blithely ignore here.) For this discussion, we’ll concentrate on extracting oxygen from ilmenite because there’s lots of the stuff available, and because the chemical processes involved are fairly straightforward.


  2. Hi again Ms Cosner,

    The following is some of my notes and references regarding the matters we were talking about earlier. Because of some family matters I have bot been able to finish my reply to you on schedule, but these notes are available to check out.

    I know you don’t believe that any sciences that contradict your creationist worldview are valid, but the research is out there and the tide is changing. Although you don’t believe it science is encroaching into religious beliefs and leaving the YEC’s behind and their position is getting pretty precarious.

    I don’t have the quote handy, but a Catholic Church theologian wrote many years ago that the church must not appear silly by holding on to that which was proven wrong in other fields of knowledge. Paraphrased…not exact words, but the gist of the warning is accurate.

    Regarding Panspermia
    A 2008 analysis of 12C/13C isotopic ratios of organic compounds found in the Murchison meteorite indicates a non-terrestrial origin for these molecules rather than terrestrial contamination. Biologically relevant molecules so identified included uracil, an RNA nucleobase, and xanthine.[1][2] These results demonstrate that many organic compounds which are components of life on Earth were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life’s origin.[3] In August 2009, NASA scientists identified one of the fundamental chemical buildings blocks of life (the amino acid glycine) in a comet for the first time.[4]
    1… (AFP) – Jun 13, 2008 (2008-06-13). “We may all be space aliens: study”. Afp.google.com. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j_QHxWNRNdiW35Qr00L8CkwcXyvw. Retrieved 08-20- 2009

    2… Martins, Zita; Oliver Botta, Marilyn L. Fogel, Mark A. Sephton, Daniel P. Glavin, Jonathan S. Watson, Jason P. Dworkin, Alan W. Schwartz, and Pascale Ehrenfreund (2008-06-15). “Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite”. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 270 (1-2): 130–136. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.026.
    3… Martins, Zita; Oliver Botta, Marilyn L. Fogel Mark A. Sephton, Daniel P. Glavin, Jonathan S. Watson, Jason P. Dworkin, Alan W. Schwartz, Pascale Ehrenfreund. (Available online 20 March 2008). “Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite” (PDF). Earth and Planetary Science Letters. http://astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov/analytical/PDF/Martinsetal2008.pdf. Retrieved 2008-10-07.

    4… “‘Life chemical’ detected in comet”. NASA (BBC News). 18 August 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8208307.stm. Retrieved 2010-03-06.
    Also Regarding Panspermia
    Abstract Crystals, rocks and mineral ores of different origins contain viable microbial life that appears actively swimming under the microscope when the sample is properly fragmented and suspended in a nutrient medium. This form of life in rocks is unaffected by time, since microbes have been found in samples of all geological ages, from about 2.8 Ga to recent rocks, and by pressure and temperature, since it is present in metamorphic and in igneous rocks. From the tests performed, among which those to secure from sample pollution, it emerges that this form of life is not destroyed, as indeed expected, when the rock is heated above 500 °C in a kiln. However, all cloned microbes are sensitive to growth inhibition by specific antibiotics. A similar search, for the presence of microbes in meteorites, shows that also these materials are rich in microorganisms, indicating that these already existed in early Earth formation stages. Some different microbial species, derived from different samples of rocks and meteorites, have been cultured, cloned and classified by 16S rDNA typing and found to be not essentially different from present day organisms. An interesting consequence of these findings, among others, is the support to the hypothesis that life came from outside Earth with the additional indication that it was already present in those materials that accreted to form the solar planetary system.
    (5) D’Argenio, Bruno; Giuseppe Geraci and Rosanna del Gaudio (March, 2001). “Microbes in rocks and meteorites: a new form of life unaffected by time, temperature, pressure”. Rendiconti Lincei 12 (1): 51–68. doi:10.1007/BF02904521. http://www.springerlink.com/content/q3215249n6853188/. Retrieved 05-27-2010
    Stratigraphy and Flood Geology
    Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to demonstrate that a global flood was the origin of most of the Earth’s geological features, including sedimentary strata, fossilization, fossil fuels, and salt domes. The geological history of the Earth, in turn, is held to validate the historicity of a global flood.
    Flood geology is associated with Young Earth creationists, who regard the biblical flood narrative in Genesis 6-9 as a historically accurate record. The evidence they have presented has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community, which considers the subject to be pseudoscience. Flood geology contradicts scientific consensus in disciplines such as geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology.[1][2][3][4]
    1… Young, Davis A. (1995). The biblical Flood: a case study of the Church’s response to extrabiblical evidence. Grand Rapids, Mich:
    Eerdmans. pp. 340. ISBN 0-8028-0719-4. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-16. This is one of the best articles on the Biblical Flood I have come across. It is long, but an easy read. The author is a Christian teacher at a Christian college

    2… Index to Creationist Claims: Geology, Mark Isaak (ed.), TalkOrigins Archive

    3… Such as the existence of the geologic column; see Glenn Morton, The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood, TalkOrigins Archive
    4… Isaak 2007 page 173, Creationist claim CD750: “Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics.”
    Regarding Age Dating
    The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html Well researched and referenced.
    Radiometric dating–the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements–has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
    Roger C. Wiens Pdf file http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf The gentleman who wrote this paper is a Christian with strong ties to his church

    Ice Core Dating
    Typical ice cores are removed from an ice sheet, most commonly from the polar ice caps of Antarctica, Greenland or from high mountain glaciers elsewhere. The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800,000 years for the EPICA core. An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#References Extremely well referenced article…everything you ever wanted to know about ice cores and age dating.

    Regarding witches
    The Witch Hunts: The End of Magic and Miracles1450-1750 C.E.
    by Helen Ellerbe, from: The Dark Side of Christian History
    Regarding witches from: HERE

    1584: Reginald Scot published a book that was ahead of its time. In Discoverie of Witchcraft, he claimed that supernatural powers did not exist. Thus, there were no Witches.

    1608: Francesco Maria Guazzo published the “Compendium Maleficarum.” It discusses Witches’ pacts with Satan, the magic that Witches use to harm others, etc.


Comments are closed.