The shape of the earth is the least of your problems.  The Bible is given not to understand the heavens but to understand how to get to heaven.  You need a savior (Jn 3:16).  You won't be a god.  You cannot save yourself (Isa 64:6).  

"Yet, serpentdove is a little bit correct..."

A "little correct" is just enough to send men to hell (e.g. cults and 'isms) [Ga 5:9].  Men love to be lied to (Ps 4:2).   

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "[Y]ou are taking specific statements and then giving them blanket application to justify your position..."

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "And you were refuted at least 4 times..." 

That doesn't make my position incorrect.  When you read the Bible with understanding, you see that God got it right all along.  Science often needs to catch up to be right.  Reading Genesis correctly will give you an accurate historical narrative.  Those claiming to be Christians often interrogate the most:

"Claim: Biblical Creationists Take the Whole Bible Literally...

...It is better to say that creationists read and understand the Bible according to the grammatical-historical approach to Scripture. That is, we understand a biblical passage by taking into account its context, author, readership, literary style, etc. In other words, we read and understand the Bible in a plain or straightforward manner. This is usually what people mean when they say “literal interpretation of the Bible.” This method helps to eliminate improper interpretations of the Bible.

But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Corinthians 4:2).
All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge (Proverbs 8:8–9).
Reading the Bible “plainly” means understanding which passages are written as historical narrative, which are written as poetry, which are written as parable, which are written as prophecy, and so on. The Bible is written in many different literary styles and should be read accordingly. Genesis records actual historical events; it was written as historical narrative, and there is no reason to read it as any other literary style, such as allegory or poetry.

For example, a non-Christian once claimed, “The Bible clearly says ‘there is no God’ in Psalms 14:1.” However, this verse in context says:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good (Psalm 14:1).
The context helps determine the proper interpretation—that a fool claims there is no God.

Someone else claimed, “To interpret the days in Genesis, you need to read 2 Peter 3:8, which indicates the days are each a thousand years.” Many people try to use this passage to support the idea that the earth is millions or billions of years old, but let’s read it in context:

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:8–9).
This passage employs a literary device called a simile. Here, God compares a day to a thousand years in order to make the point that time doesn’t bind Him, in this case specifically regarding His patience. God is eternal and is not limited to the time He created.

Also, this verse does not reference the days in Genesis, so it is not warranted to apply this to the length of the days in Genesis 1. When read plainly, these verses indicate that God is patient when keeping His promises. The gentleman that spoke to me had preconceived beliefs based on man’s ideas that the earth was millions of years old. Those beliefs led him to this strange interpretation as opposed to using the historical-grammatical method.

So, biblical Christians read the Bible plainly, or straightforwardly, and in context. Accordingly, we learn from what God says and means, and we don’t apply strange literalistic (in the strict sense) meanings on metaphorical or allegorical passages, and vice versa." Full text:  Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things?

Recommended reading: 

Why Do You Take the Bible Literally?

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "YECists ignore or discount as false much of the data."

So only young earth creationists are lying about their finding?

"And it isn't merely a matter of worldview. It is a matter of methodology."

Those with a biblical worldview use deceitful methods?  Is this how Mormons speak about Christians?

"YECism not does not follow a scientific methodology to prove its claim."

Young earth creationists fail to follow scientific methodology?

Ok--you believe that those who hold to a biblical worldview are liars.  I don't.  Is that why you are a Mormon?  At least you are consistent. 

The following chart must be false because it was compiled by young earth creationists from data gathered by secular scientists.  Don't let facts get in the way of your antichrist bias.

See:

Radiocarbon Measurements on "Dead" Carbon:

Apparent C-14 Age + 0 0 C14/C ratio (pmc) ++ 0 Material Reference
39,700 years +- ? 0.71 +- ? * Marble Aerts-Bijma et al. 1997
41,000 +- 1400 years 0.61 +- 0.12 Foraminifera Arnold et al. 1987
41,000 +- 500 years 0.60 +- 0.04 Commercial graphite Schmidt et al. 1987
42,000 +- 600 years 0.52 +- 0.04 Whale bone Jull et al. 1986
42,000 +- 1000 years 0.51 +- 0.08 Marble Gulliksen & Thomsen 1992
43,000 +- ? years 0.5 +- ? Dolomite (dirty) Middleton et al. 1989
43,000 +- 1000 years 0.5 +- 0.1 Wood, 60 Ka Gillespie & Hedges 1984
44,000 +- 600 years 0.42 +- 0.03 Anthracite Grootes et al. 1986
44,300 +- 1500 years 0.401 +- 0.084 Foraminifera (untreated) Schleicher et al. 1998
44,800 +- 890 years 0.383 +- 0.045 Wood (charred) Snelling 1997
45,200 +- 710 years 0.358 +- 0.033 Anthracite Beukins et al. 1992
45,600 +- 830 years 0.342 +- 0.037 Wood Beukins et al. 1992
46,000 +- 2300 years 0.34 +- 0.11 Recycled graphite Arnold et al. 1987
46,000 +- 1000 years 0.32 +- 0.06 Foraminifera Gulliksen & Thomsen 1992
47,000 +- ? years 0.3 +- ? Coke Terrasi et al. 1990
47,000 +- ? years 0.3 +- ? Coal Schleicher et al. 1998
48,000 +- 600 years 0.26 +- 0.02 Marble Schmidt et al. 1987
48,700 +- 1900 years 0.2334 +- 0.061 Carbon powder McNichol et al. 1995...Full text:   Radiocarbon Measurements
on "Dead" Carbon  http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14fp.htm

Also see:

List of No So Old Things

"save himself" or "save herself." I certainly have never believed such a thing. 

Every person must to come to Jesus (the God-man [Jn 1:1]) to be saved (Jn 3:16). 

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "The man is ridiculous. He definitely serves as a warning to others of how not to be."

Maybe you meant me.

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "[R]ead Genesis symbolically and figuratively..."

If you choose to read Genesis only symbolically and figuratively then the rest of the Bible will not mean much.  We really can believe the biblical account of history:

Claim: Biblical Creationists Believe the Earth Is the Same Now as It Was at the Beginning of Creation...

...Biblical creationists believe that significant changes have happened to the earth in its 6,000-year history—two very catastrophic ones: the Fall and the Flood.

The Fall was when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Prior to this, the earth and all of creation was perfect (Genesis 1:31; Deuteronomy 32:4). Adam was given only one command in this perfect world, not to eat from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If he ate, his punishment would be death (Genesis 2:17).

But Adam ate, and he died (Genesis 3:19, 5:5), and now we die because we too sin (disobey God). Death and suffering entered the creation as an intrusion.

There were also other results of Adam’s disobedience (Genesis 3). One was that the ground was cursed. Another was thorns and thistles. There were changes to the animals and humans.

The Fall was a significant event that definitely caused the earth to change (Romans 8:18–22).

The Flood was God’s judgment on the people of the world who had turned their back on Him (Genesis 6–8). God said He would destroy them with a Flood, and He did.

This Flood was a global Flood that demolished everything. Many biblical creationists believe there was initially only one continent (Genesis 1:9). This original continent broke apart and was rearranged catastrophically during the Flood and the following years and finally became what we have today.

This massive Flood buried many animals, plants, and marine life, and many became fossils. A vast portion of the sedimentary rock layers we find throughout the world today is a testimony to this global Flood.

The Flood also caused ocean basins to sink down, mountains to be pushed up, etc. Major geological features resulted. Additional after-effects of the Flood were the Ice Age, plate fault lines, etc...."  Full text:  Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things?

"The reason to read it as a non-literal text is because it matches the style of other creation stories of the time, because when taken figuratively its teachings fit into the overall structure of the rest of the Bible, and because it doesn't match reality if taken literally."

"Refuting Common Objections to Six Literal Days...

Objection: 

“Science” has shown the earth and universe are billions of years old; therefore the “days” of creation must be long periods (or indefinite periods) of time....

Answer:

1.The age of the earth, as determined by man’s fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions, so it is not proven that the earth is billions of years old.23
2.This unproven age is being used to force an interpretation on the language of the Bible. Thus, man’s fallible theories are allowed to interpret the Bible. This ultimately undermines the use of language to communicate.
3.Evolutionary scientists claim the fossil layers over the earth’s surface date back hundreds of millions of years. As soon as one allows millions of years for the fossil layers, then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering before Adam’s sin.
The Bible makes it clear24 that death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering are a consequence of sin.25 In Genesis 1:29–30, God gave Adam and Eve and the animals plants to eat (this is reading Genesis at face value, as literal history, as Jesus did in Matthew 19:3–6). In fact, there is a theological distinction made between animals and plants. Human beings and higher animals are described in Genesis 1 as having a nephesh, or life principle. (This is true of at least the vertebrate land animals as well as the birds and fish: Genesis 1:20, 24.) Plants do not have this nephesh—they are not “alive” in the same sense animals are. They were given for food.

Man was permitted to eat meat only after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). This makes it obvious that the statements in Genesis 1:29–30 were meant to inform us that man and the animals were vegetarian to start with. Also, in Genesis 9:2, we are told of a change God apparently made in the way animals react to man.

God warned Adam in Genesis 2:17 that if he ate of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” he would “die.” The Hebrew grammar actually means, “dying, you will die.” In other words, it would be the commencement of a process of physical dying (see Genesis 3:19). It also clearly involved spiritual death (separation from God).

After Adam disobeyed God, the Lord clothed Adam and Eve with “coats of skins” (Genesis 3:21).26 To do this He must have killed and shed the blood of at least one animal. The reason for this can be summed up by Hebrews 9:22:

And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
God requires the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. What happened in the garden was a picture of what was to come in Jesus Christ, who shed His blood on the Cross as the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

Now if the Garden of Eden were sitting on a fossil record of dead things millions of years old, then blood was shed before sin. This would destroy the foundation of the Atonement. The Bible is clear: the sin of Adam brought death and suffering into the world. As Romans 8:19–22 tells us, the whole of creation “groans” because of the effects of the fall of Adam, and the creation will be liberated “from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21). Also, bear in mind that thorns came into existence after the Curse. Because there are thorns in the fossil record, it had to be formed after Adam and Eve sinned.

The pronouncement of the death penalty on Adam was both a curse and a blessing. A curse because death is horrible and continually reminds us of the ugliness of sin; a blessing because it meant the consequences of sin—separation from fellowship with God—need not be eternal. Death stopped Adam and his descendants from living in a state of sin, with all its consequences, forever. And because death was the just penalty for sin, Jesus Christ suffered physical death, shedding His blood, to release Adam’s descendants from the consequences of sin. The Apostle Paul discusses this in depth in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

Revelation 21–22 makes it clear that there will be a “new heavens and a new earth” one day, where there will be “no more death” and “no more curse”—just like it was before sin changed everything. If there are to be animals as part of the new earth, obviously they will not be dying or eating each other, nor eating the redeemed people!

Thus, adding the supposed millions of years to Scripture destroys the foundations of the message of the Cross..." Full text:  Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "[Y]ou have only one of several slightly different 'biblical worldviews.'"

This from a Christ-denying Mormon (1 Jn 4:3).  Thanks, I'll stick with Christianity (Jn 1:1). Jesus in not the spirit brother Lucifer.  

"As a Christian myself..."

Mormons deny the deity of Jesus like all cults and 'ism (Jn 1:1).  Mormons are not Christians (1 Jn 4:3).

See:

Ten Questions and Answers on Mormonism

I Bear You My Testimony (Tract)

Another Jesus

"Why are you dragging in my religion here when it is irrelevant to the discussion?"

You claimed to be a Christian.  Mormons are not Christians.  They are cultists.  Religion will not save a person.  Jesus will (Jn 3:16). 

See:

Cult Toasters Mormons

"[E]ven if every measurement there is real, it is not a scientific argument for YEC.  It is simply a list of data points that doesn't necessarily prove anything at all..."

That's right.  The data means nothing to an ostrich either.   

"[I]t does matter what a Christian believes concerning the days of creation in Genesis 1. Most importantly, all schemes which insert eons of time into, or before, creation undermine the gospel by putting death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering before sin and the Fall, as explained above (see answer to Objection 1). Here are two more reasons:

1.It is really a matter of how one approaches the Bible, in principle. If we do not allow the language to speak to us in context, but try to make the text fit ideas outside of Scripture, then ultimately the meaning of any word in any part of the Bible depends on man’s interpretation, which can change according to whatever outside ideas are in vogue.
2.If one allows science (which has wrongly become synonymous with evolution and materialism) to determine our understanding of Scripture, then this can lead to a slippery slope of unbelief through the rest of Scripture. For instance, science would proclaim that a person cannot be raised from the dead. Does this mean we should interpret the Resurrection of Christ to reflect this? Sadly, some do just this, saying that the Resurrection simply means that Jesus’ teachings live on in His followers.
When people accept at face value what Genesis is teaching and accept the days as ordinary days, they will have no problem accepting and making sense of the rest of the Bible.

Martin Luther once said:

I have often said that whoever would study Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we must be certain: no clearer speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken.39
Pure Words
God’s people need to realize that the Word of God is something very special. It is not just the words of men. As Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, “You received it not as the word of men, but as it is, truly the word of God.”

Proverbs 30:5–6 states that “every word of God is pure ... . Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar.” The Bible cannot be treated as just some great literary work. We need to “tremble at his word” (Isaiah 6:5) and not forget:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
In the original autographs, every word and letter in the Bible is there because God put it there. Let us listen to God speaking to us through His Word and not arrogantly think we can tell God what He really means..." Full text:  Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  [Every person must to come to Jesus (the God-man [Jn 1:1]) to be saved (Jn 3:16).]  "I agree."

You agree that Jesus is not the spirit brother of Lucifer?  He is the uncreated, creator God?

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "You are believing the Bible first..."

That's right.  Christians believe the Bible.

"If YECism were really a scientific theory, there would be a body of evidence..."

That is true.  There is a body of evidence and it is overwhelming.

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "What were the Spaniards afraid of when Columbus wanted to sail to India in the opposite direction?"

That's a good question.  I hope you weren't waiting for an honest answer.

Resonse to comment [from a Mormon]:  "Which Spaniards? The common people? The ones who followed the Greek philosophers and "scientists"? The sailors?..."

Only those Spaniards who argue your case, PMcN. 

You can spend your life trying to undermine the Bible--adding to or taking away from the word of God.  That is what cultists do after all (Rev. 22:18, 19).  But the word has stood the test of time and it will continue to stand (Mt 5:18).

Lighthouse and I, being Christians, believe the Bible (Ps. 119:161).  We accept it as God's word (Ac 11:1).   

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "[Y]ou want the prestige..."

I want prestige?  Who wants to be a god?  Check your pride--it's a killer (Mal 1:3). 

"...and acclaim of being "scientific" while not following the methodology."

I am not a scientist.  I follow the work of other scientists who use the scientific method.  You believe their methods are deceptive.  I do not. 

"[W]hen someone starts out by saying "this statement is true" and then takes the approach of "what can I do to counter the arguments against this statement," he/she is not following a scientific methodology..."

When I meet:  "...Isaac Newton (dynamics, gravitation, calculus), Michael Faraday (electromagnetics, field theory), Robert Boyle (chemistry), Johannes Kepler (astronomy), and Louis Pasteur (bacteriology, immunization) and Francis Bacon, a Bible-believing Christian, [who] developed the scientific method...(Ham, pg. 205-206, cited earler)," I'll have to ask them.  They were all biblical creationists not evil scientists.

"The evidence FOR YECism is purely religious---an appeal to a certain way of interpreting the first two chapters of the Bible."

I admit my bias (Ro 1:16).  Admit yours.  I believe that the Bible is true from the very first verse (2 Tim. 2:15).  You do not.

Young Earth Creationists have more than enough evidence to convince any reasonable person that God's word can be trusted.  Honest scientists who are by no means Christian admit that evidence points to intelligent design and a young earth.   

Response to comment [from a pagan]:  "Really? Creationists always seem so desperate to me."

Ad hominem.  Address the issues.  The world seems pretty desperate to me (Ac 17:27).

"They have no explanation for so many things-- for why groups of fossils form neat little chronological layers..."

Young earth creationists have an answer for that.  It is a worldwide flood as given in the Bible (Gen. 6–8). 

"...We've found countless species that are extinct, and you think they all vanished-- and were replaced no less-- in thousands of years?"

Young earth creationists realize that animals became extinct.  They have a better answer than an asteroid colliding with the earth.  It is called a worldwide flood as given in the Bible (Gen 6-8).  After the catastrophic flood the earth changed.  Some species dies out due to these dramatic changes. 

"We've found the evidence, and never once did Fred Flintstone turn up with a dinosaur lawn-mower."

"Were Humans Concentrated in High Density Pockets that Have Not Been Discovered?...

...Today, humans tend to clump together in groups in towns, villages, and cities. In the same way, people were probably not evenly distributed before the Flood. The first city is recorded in Genesis 4:17, long before the Flood. We know that most of the population today lives within 100 miles (160 km) of the coastline. One report states, “Already nearly two-thirds of humanity—some 3.6 billion people—crowd along a coastline, or live within 150 kilometers of one.”

This is strong evidence that the pre-Flood civilizations probably were not evenly distributed on the landmass. If man wasn’t evenly distributed, then the pockets of human habitation possibly were buried in places that have not yet been discovered...

...Think about It—Would You Want to Live with Dinosaurs?...

...Often, people believe that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then they didn’t live at the same time. Actually, all we know for sure is that they weren’t buried together. It is very easy for creatures to live at the same time on earth, but never even cross paths. Have you ever seen a tiger or a panda in the wild? Just because animals are not found together does not mean they do not live in the same world at the same time.

A great example is the coelacanth. Coelacanth fossils are found in marine deposits below dinosaurs and in other marine layers that date about the same age as dinosaurs...

...Coelacanths aren’t the only example. We find many examples like this, even with creatures that did not live in the sea. One popular example is the Wollemi Pine, which was fossilized in Jurassic deposits, supposedly 150 million years ago...

...What Can We Conclude?...

...If human and dinosaur bones are ever found in the same layers, it would be a fascinating find to both creationists and evolutionists. Those who hold a biblical view of history wouldn’t be surprised but would consider several logical possibilities, such as human parties invading dinosaur lands for sport or for food, or merely humans and dinosaurs being washed up and buried together.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, who believe the geologic layers represent millions of years of time, would have a real challenge. In the old-earth view, man isn’t supposed to be the same age as dinosaurs. Yet we can be sure that this finding would not overturn their starting assumptions—they would simply try to develop a hypothesis consistent with their preconceived view of history. For example, they might search for the possibility that the fossils were moved and re-deposited.

So, ultimately, the debate is not about the evidence itself—where we find human fossils and dinosaur fossils. Nobody was there to actually observe humans and dinosaurs living together. We are forced to reconstruct that history based on our existing assumptions about time and history, as well as our limited fossil evidence from the rocks.

As biblical creationists, we don’t require that human and dinosaur fossils be found in the same layers. Whether they are found or not, does not affect the biblical view of history.

The fundamental debate is really about the most trustworthy source of information about history. Do we start with the Bible, which God says is true in every detail, including its history, or do we start with the changing theories of imperfect man? God tells Christians to walk by faith and that “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6). But this is not a blind faith. God has filled the world with clear evidences that confirm the truth of His Word and the certainty of the Christian faith. The fossil record itself is an incredible testimony to the truth of God’s Word and His promise to “blot out” all land dwelling, air-breathing animals and humans in a worldwide catastrophe..." Full text:  Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?

Response to comment [from other]:  "Which scientists have come up with a theory of divine creation?"

Perhaps you are confused.  God gave the creation account.  This is fact.  Men gave an alternate opinion.  This is theory.  There are plenty of scientists who believe the creation account as given in the book of Genesis. 

"And they were all wrong about cosmology, just as they would have been wrong on a whole range of matters, including quantum physics and the structure of the atom."

No.  The best were God fearing and correct: 

Johannes Kepler (astronomy)

Isaac Newton ("...[U]sed atomism in the 17th century.  for instance, in his development of the corpuscular theory of light" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom])

Albert Einstein (quantum mechanics), etc.

"There is an important distinction between these scientists and modern creationists..."

True.    

[Honest scientists who are by no means Christian admit that evidence points to intelligent design and a young earth.]  "Name two."

See:

Do real scientists believe in creation?

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

Do a Google image search.  See if they have evil mustaches.   

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "[Y]ou made the statement "'Science' said the earth is flat."  That statement is false. Religionists said the earth is flat. "

Sorry, you have it backward.  I understand that you believe this myth.  Most people do.  We were speaking about ancient Greece.  The Bible (not the Book of Mormon) got it right all along.  I realize that your work it to undermine the Bible.  Go back, then go back farther in history if you are truly interested in the truth.  

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "Newton, Faraday, Boyle, and Kepler knew nothing about bacteria or virii..."

Louis Pasteur (referenced earlier) knew a thing or two.  It obviously bothers you that the greatest scientists were God fearing men.  As usual, liberals only argue with ad hominem attacks.  It is easy to dismiss scientists who believe in young earth creation so that you do not have to deal with the facts.    

On God's authority [2Ti 3:16].

"Your stated belief is that we shouldn't follow man's word. But...

1) the Bible is a book of stories invented by man, written by man, compiled by man, read by man, and interpreted by man;
2) you're using a man's mind (your own) to make determinations about it..."

I don't accept claim 1 (2 Ti 3:16).

"Van[A]nne's site is nothing but man's word (it's not the Bible, is it?)"

Would it matter if it quoted the Bible?  You reject the Bible.  At any rate, VanAnne's site quotes the Bible.

"[Y]ou're only giving one side of the story...and promoting it as if it was the entire picture."

Evaluate both sides of the issue [young earth, creation, is the Bible true?] and decide for yourself.  I have decided that the Bible is true based on an abundance of evidence.

"[Y]ou're making this perfectly infallible determination with a mind that you acknowledge is imperfect and fallible?"

I make a determination based on the teachings of scripture. 

"[B]elief/faith is the religionist's strongest argument, because it acknowledges both preference and doubt simultaneously..."

Men have a will to chose God or not.  Christians have a faith which can be defended.  It is not a blind have as some have accused.  Most Christians I know have tested everything (Isa 1:18). The Bible has answers to all of life's questions for those willing to take a look.     

"Show us that the story of creation was not invented by humans."

Consider the first verse of the Bible:

A quote comes to mind from A.W. Tozer, "The doctrine of the Trinity is truth for the heart. The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained instead of being against it, is actually in its favor; such a truth had to be revealed, no one could have imagined it."

"The Bible is not such a book as man would write if he could because it condemns him or could write if he would because it surpasses him." ~ Louis Chafer.  What man would come up with the cross (1 Cor 10:32)?  Why can't men dismiss Jesus?  What could turn the apostle Paul from terrorist to evangelist?  These are just a few of the questions that people begin to ask when they consider the claims of the Bible. 

See:

Inspired Scripture

"[S]how us that [the Bible] was written by anyone other than humans."

The Bible was written by men inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16).

Response to comment [from other]:  "Humans wrote the original contents."

See:

How We Got the Bible

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "Ardi does establish some new understanding of human evolution..."

You're going to tell this precious little baby we see here (avatar) that she comes from a monkey?  How cruel.  

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "Why is that cruel? Even if it were, does it matter if it is also true?"

Hi PB.  Because if she believes that she came from an animal, what will stop her from acting like one?  Where does one get meaning in life if we are all the product of random processes?  If she goes to public school, they will teach her that science has proved that God is not necessary.  He did not create this universe and life, etc.  She will learn that pain and suffering are necessary parts of life (not an intrusion to life as is biblical).  How could God be loving if she is taught all of this?  Young people are hurting and we wonder why.

There is a creator God and we are responsible to him.  The sooner a person knows this, the better.  Years of pain can be sparred a child if parents will teach kids this.  She needs to know that there are moral absolutes and they come from God.  But instead, she will be taught that all views are equal and valid--but that won't include Christianity because Christianity says that Jesus is the one and only way to heaven (Jn 14:6).  She will learn that truth is relative in an increasingly secular education system and culture.   

Response to comment [from :  "I bet you also believe seat belts are dangerous based on the mountains of evidence and cases of death caused by seat belts."

False analogy.  Ad hominem:  distracting from the argument. 

Response to comment :  "...their a priori position."

You've got it backward.  Believing in evolution takes blind faith:

"If real science supports the Bible’s claims about an eternal Creator God, then why isn’t this readily accepted? Michael Behe answers with this:

[The]...most powerful reason for science’s reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words ... they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior...."  Full text:  Is There Really a God?

"You are picking and choosing evidence and discarding the rest..."

Ad hominem.  Naturalistic evolutionists have the same empirical data as biblical creationists.  They interpret the data differently.

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "ToE doesn't pretend to be a source of moral guidance...Finding faith is something that must be done individually."

Moral authority comes from God in scripture.  We are commanded to repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30) and believe (1 Jn 3:23).

"You can't try and put the burden on science or science teachers to reconcile the ugly realities of this world with the search for meaning and the Divine."

Schools in America began with that purpose in mind.  How the mighty fall.

"...[I]t is unconstitutional to teach give preferential treatment to anyone's pet theory..."

False.  Our founding fathers encouraged the Christianity to be taught and promoted in public. 

The Bible is a "pet theory"?  What is it about the name of Jesus that bothers you?

"That may make you uncomfortable but it is our responsibility to teach science and history as they are..."

Man's opinion vs. God's word. 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "My daughter does not come from a monkey. She...shares a relatively recent common ancestor with all other higher order primates."

Did you just call your daughter a primate?

"I am certain my daughter will be able to understand this fact...and that she will be able to work to negate the willful ignorance that you embody."

Man is made in God's image (Ge 1:27; Isa 45:12).  I pray she does not follow your instruction (Jer 9:14; 1Pe 1:18) or example (Eze 20:18; Am 2:4).

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  [...ranting] "I'd rather be a monkey."

I can tell.

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  [Ad hominem]  "Serpentdove, those are not ad hominem fallacies. You need to understand those terms if you want to pepper your posts with them..."

Memento Mori accused me of "picking and choosing evidence and discarding the rest..."  This is an attempt to attack--not the issue--but the person (in this case me).  It is an ad hominem attack and it is false.  

"No that would be an attack on your methods and scholarship not on your person or beliefs."

First of all, I am not a scientist so I do not pick and choose evidence to keep or discard.  Insinuating that I intentionally deceive is a personal attack (ad hominem) and a weak argument. 

Memento Mori said ""You are picking and choosing evidence and discarding the rest..."  Focus on the issue not the person.   

Why don't you just say "thank you" for the fact that I pointed it out. Now you know better.

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "To charge someone with failing to look at all the evidence is a perfectly reasonable and entirely relevant issue."

Does Memento Mori know what evidence I have considered?  No.  That is why it is best to stay on the issues themselves.

"You are mistaking the ad hominem fallacy for any negative statement about an opponent."

An ad hominem attack is a negative attack on an opponent.  It is attacking the person not the issue.  

"If you are ignoring evidence that works against your conclusion, it is extremely relevant..."

That's a big "if".  I, like most people, was indoctrinated with naturalistic evolutionary teaching.

"The fact that such an action (if it is true) on your part may indicate something negative about you (your sloppiness, lack of skill, deceptiveness, stupidity, ignorance, or whatever) doesn't invalidate the charge or render it fallacious or irrelevant."

You could spend your time accusing me of:  being sloppy, having a lack of skill, being deceptive, being stupid, being ignorant, etc. (which is typical of the left) or you could focus on the issues.

"...[I]f he were to accuse you of being a racist or a sex offender as part of his attack on your views of the age of the earth, such a thing would indeed be an ad hominem fallacy."

If I get to choose between:  being sloppy, having a lack of skill, being deceptive, being stupid, being ignorant, etc. or being a racist or a sex offender...I choose...how 'bout stay on the issues.

"For example, every time you have brought up the fact that I am a Mormon, your have committed the ad hominem fallacy."

To be accurate, you could accuse me of poisoning the well.  And you would be correct.  I claim that Mormon teaching is poison and I warn others about the poison of your false teaching.  If anyone swallows it, they will die (Jude 1:4).  People can accept or reject this.   

"It is irrelevant to the issues of the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and evolution..."

You're right.  But when you discuss God--who he is, why he came, why man was created, what is man's purpose--then I must challenge you.  Jesus is the creator (John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:2, 10; Rev. 3:14).  You are free to discuss anything but I should also be free to call you on the points where you depart from historical, biblical Christianity.  

"[I]t is simply your way of dismissing what I have to say or to garner support from others reading this thread who may have negative feelings about LDS Christians."

I do not wish to dismiss you.  It is my hope that you come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus (Jn 1:1).  When you make a claim as you just did:  "LDS Christians" I must clarify to the reader that Mormons are not Christians.  Because Mormons deny the deity of Jesus (Jn 1:1-3), that puts them in the kingdom of the cults.  The reader will accept or reject this.  You will accept or reject this.    

"If you want to respond logically, you will challenge him on what evidence it is that he thinks you are ignoring, and then you will deal with..."

Present the evidence.

"If you want to run and hide, accuse him of ad hominem and then pretend that it is Mori that has the problem."

He has no problem if he stops using ad hominem attacks.  

["An ad hominem attack is a negative attack on an opponent. It is attacking the person not the issue."]  "This statement proves that you don't know what you are talking about. Please educate yourself. Ad hominem is an irrelevant appeal to something about the person."

Yep, that too.

"There are many, many instances in a debate where something negative about a person is absolutely critical."

Right, like a Mormon discussing the nature of God and Jesus' relationship to his disciples.     

"I could give you hundreds of examples where saying negative things about a person was exactly on target, perfectly relevant, and thus not an ad hominem fallacy."

Um hmm.  And charging me with not having reviewed the evidence would be false. 

"Please respond. Are you ignoring evidence and, if so, why?"

The answer was "no" then.  It is "no" now. 

"The accusation against you [picking and choosing evidence and discarding the rest] is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand and to your claims and arguments."

It would be relevant if it were true.

[Poisoning the well]  "To be accurate, "poisoning the well" is generally a kind of ad hominem fallacy..."

Right.

"...But in this case you brought up my religion after we had already started discussing the issue, so it really isn't a good example of "poisoning the well.""

I called you on your false teaching.  We warn others when wolves are in their midst (Mt 7:15).  If they don't believe me, then one like you comes knocking on their door and then they are ready for a lie (2 Thess 2:11).

"So you now admit that your arguments were off-topic, irrelevant, and fallacious..."

No.

"You brought up my religion to side-track the discussion about the age of the earth and to attack me personally." 

You are free to discuss the age of the earth all you'd like.  When you mix truth with error, people should know that Mormons do not come from a biblical worldview (Ga 5:9).     

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "Yes, my daughter is a primate and so are you as well. We humans are all primates. Are you uneducated?...Keep praying, it will do about as good as it does now for you.

"[H]e was saying that you are choosing the evidence that you will discuss and the evidence that you will not discuss. That's no accusing you of deception, that's stating distrust in your method."

The reader will decide what to accept and what to reject.  I try to stay on topic and discuss issues that are relevant.  

"By calling it an ad hom and blowing him off you're just proving that he is correct to distrust your method."

I call an ad hominem an ad hominem.  If you distrust my "method" there is nothing to speak about.  You are free to dialogue with someone else.

Mori is within his rights to question your intent. If you are not trying to intentionally deceive, you should call him on the assertion and explain exactly why you have chosen to ignore evidence that contradicts your claim.

I reject his assertion.   You are free to accept it.  The reader will decide for him or herself.

"You really need to take a college-level course in logic, Serpentdove. It seems that you have a superficial, google-level understanding of logic, rhetoric, structured arguments, and so forth. It is clear that you don't know the meaning of the words you are using."
 

"Judging from your track record you are either willfully ignorant, delusional, or not very observant. This is not an ad hominem, it is a valid criticism based on the evidence you have supplied."

Ad hominem.  Are you making any argument?

"You present a site that openly admits to only ever taking note of evidence that supports what they expect to find. As a consequence, no amount of evidence could change their mind. It follows that evidence is not their concern...Why would you regard this as authoritative if you were interested in the evidence?"

Ad hominem.  Discuss the issues not the people presenting them.  And, you've got that backward. 

See:

Protecting Evolution Regardless of the Evidence

"[S]erpentdove obviously applies the same silly standard to accept or reject evidence in making his decision regarding this issue."

Ad hominem.  What standards to you use to accept or reject evidence?  If the evidence does not affirm your worldview, will you consider it?

"[C]alling a person stupid would not be an ad hominem fallacy if a person's stupidity were relevant to the argument."

Ad hominem.  I know you can get through a sentence without the use of an ad hominem attack. 

"Oh, sure, a theory about God that doesn't require amazing leaps of faith in an ancient book."

Believing the Bible does require faith (Jn 20:29). 

"SD, why do you only use AiG?"

I do not only cite Answers in Genesis.  They do answer the top 25 questions (discussed at ToL from time to time).  There are other reputable sites as well: 

CreationOnTheWeb

CreationReserachSociety

EvolutionFairytale

CreationScience

Heavens Declare

His Glory Blogsite

Evolution Fairy Tale

NW Creation
 

"You have no science background..."

You did not address anyone.  Am I to assume you mean me?--Again.   If so, ad hominem.  Address the issues.  Anyone can present them.  For example, a man can have an opinion about the morality of murdering children even though he's never had a child. 

"Whether you intentionally deceive or deceive non-intentionally...it's still deception."

If you believe I am out to deceive, there is nothing to discuss.

"You make yourself an issue..."

I would love to not be the issue.  In fact, if you would stop making me the issue, that would be helpful.  

"...your own ignorance and hypocrisy."

Ad hominem.  If I am an ignorant hypocrite then why discuss anything with me? 

"...your own assertion that this stuff is not about the evidence, but rather "worldview"."

I believe the real issue to be one of worldviews.  You may accept or reject that claim.

"That's a direct claim that you are the issue, not science..."

You can make me the issue or you can look at the science.

"Serpent...if you can be such a hypocrite without really realizing it...just imagine what else is going on inside of that head of yours...how many other false ideas..."

Ad hominem.

"When you post the assertions of a source, it is not an ad hominem to question their authority on legitimate grounds."

You are free to question their authority--and you have done that.  If you question the authority of the scientists at Answers in Genesis or other young earth creationist sites, fine.  I do not call their authority or credibility into question.  They are reputable.  Let the reader decide. 

"...[T]he MO of a site like AiG means that we have very good reason to suspect that they do not have good grounds."

You suspect them.  I do not.  I suspect that they bring an honest challenge to the claims of evolution and an old earth.

"They are categorically incorrect on many counts.."

You believe this.  I do not.

"[S]ince if we point this out you will just churn out another AiG article..."

If you reject any evidence that Answers in Genesis submits, then what is there to discuss?  Let the reader decide which theory seems more reasonable based on the evidence.

"So if we can establish that they have a dishonest approach to the evidence..."

I realize that you would like to discredit them altogether.  You are free to believe what you'd like.  I do not hold their theories in disrepute.  It is helpful to discuss issues-- not websites or people (ad hominem).

"...and you start quoting sources that are honest, we can start having a meaningful discussion."

I believe that the biblical creationist scientists present honest facts.

"I described how science works..."

And you got that scientific method from a Bible believing Christian (Francis Bacon).  Do you reject his work as well? 

"...and it has mechanisms of accountability in it to protect it from the sort of behavior that AiG admit to engaging in."

Provide a statement from Answers in Genesis where they declare that their methods of evidence gathering are deceitful. 

"Science does not have a pre-existing commitment to evolution."

You have a commitment to reject young earth creation.  Why would scientists be any different?  I believe that worldviews are at issue when it comes to interpreting empirical data.  You may accept or reject that claim.

"If it is shown not to be the best model for the evidence there is, it will be replaced by the best model."

You'd think.

"But AiG can never, ever, admit that their model is wrong, no matter what the evidence is."

They never stop asking questions and formulating theories.  It's a ridiculous charge.

"They have a commitment to their version of events, not to the evidence."

They interpret empirical data differently than those who believe in naturalistic evolution.  To my mind, young earth creationists present a far more reasonable theory.

"...when AiG gives an overview of evolution, they do so in such a way as to sweep under the carpet all of the evidence that does not fit their viewpoint..."

You believe they are out to deceive.  I do not.

"It is unbalanced, dishonest, and completely unscientific."

I don't think so.  Again, I think you have it backward.

See:

Protecting Evolution Regardless of the Evidence

"Serpentdove has made it absolutely clear that (1) he hasn't a clue about what the ad hominem fallacy is..."

Alleged Certainty.

"... and (2) he hasn't a clue why his sources are being attacked and dismissed."

I understand why you attack (Jn 15:20) and dismiss the sources (Eze 13:19).

"It is both amusing and painful to watch him squirm about on this and other threads with his dreadful and tiresome "ad hominem" mantra..."

Ad hominem.  Did you have a topic for discussion in there?
 

"And serpent, here's something you seem to have me and the scientific community wrong on:  I have no commitment to evolution.  If it is wrong, either in part or completely, as it stands, then I want to see it corrected as soon as possible.  If there was evidence for a different model that outweighed evolution, I would be all behind it.  I am interested in investigating the natural world to increase our understanding. That is it. That is all." 

Good. Never stop asking questions (Isa 1:18). 

"[Y]ou are declaring that, first, one decides what the truth is then, second, he interprets the evidence in the context of that decision."

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."  —Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999...Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge..."  Full text:  What Is Science?

"This assertion by you makes you the issue..."

Only if you make me the issue.  So, don't make me the issue.

"...your underlying premise."

I believe the Bible.  Many fine scientists have believed the Bible too.

"Your own premise...that it's a matter of worldview...is faulty to begin with.  You are creating your own problem...and then blaming everyone else for it."

I am offering a counterargument.  You are free to accept it or reject it.  And you can do all of this without brining Answers in Genesis or me into the picture.

"You are your own enemy here...not everyone else."

You make me an enemy for your own reasons (Gal 4:16, Eze 13:19).

"Serpent...you have made yourself the topic...and then you blame others for "ad homs" when they call it to your attention."

I call an ad hominem an ad hominem.

"If you make yourself the topic...then it is on-topic, and not ad-hom."

I do not make myself the topic.  You make me the topic.

"If you want the topic to be something other than yourself, then focus on the actual science..."

Imagine that.

"[T]hat is, real science, not cherry-picked, strawman-infused, half-truth AIG science...and we will, too."

Great.    Let's talk about science.

Young earth creationists are of course "real" scientists as well.  They reevaluate evidence all of the time. 

See:

Can Creationists be “Real” Scientists?

War of Worldviews

"[S]cience...starts out without making unnecessary assumptions and looks for the best model."

See:

Science and Bias

"[C]an you explain to me in your own words what the first article you linked to has to do with mutations in yeast coding genes?"

I do not care to debate with you.  You have a counterargument to your claims.  

See:

The Natural History of Retroviruses Exogenization vs Endogenization

A Review of Mitoribosome Structure and Function Does not Support the Serial Endosymbiotic Theory

"I'm starting to think you're about as wise as a dove and as intellectually honest as a serpent."

Ad hominem.  Let the reader decide.

[Science and bias]  "Talk about blatant misrepresentation of the meaning of hypothesis in the scientific method."

Now Answers in Genesis is even wrong about science and bias?  Anything they say on any subject must be wrong.  Your bias is showing.  You believe what you want to not the truth.  There is nothing else to discuss.   

"So all major scientists in the world are being dishonest?"

Of course not.  All scientists have the same empirical data.  It is the interpretation of that data that is at issue.  

"They should put at least a little bit of effort into offering theories which are scientifically based."

You'll only agree with them when they agree with you.  It is not truth you are after. 

"[Young earth creation]...no basis in science."

Empirical data is the same.  It is the interpretation of that data which is at issue. 

"Bacon......an appeal to authority."

It is an example of your picking and choosing what to believe.  Who is dishonest.  Who refuses the truth?  You may believe that you are intellectual but the real intellectuals of history have believed God:  Socrates, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Werner Von Braun. 

When men love to be lied to (Eze 13:19), they cannot be helped.  

"Why don't you just answer the question about Bacon's opinions on the topics mentioned? Can't do it?"

It wouldn't matter because truth is not appealing to you. 

"At first I was surprised, then amazed, then amused, now bored."

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

[Former debates with young earth creationists]  "He and I went head to head a number of times."

Each time you choose to believe what is untrue it has consequences (Ga 6:7). 

"[S]omeone who hasn't even bothered to give himself the most rudimentary education in what ToE actually is..."

I do not know a person not educated in Darwinian evolution.

"...proclaiming the hokum on AiG as absolute truth..."

I claim that the Bible is true.  Answers in Genesis provides scientific answers for those willing to hear and understand the truth.  People have believed lies in the theory of evolution.  It is not fact.  It is man's theory.  Most people do not want their beliefs challenged.  That is why all the hostility toward Answers in Genesis.  If the Bible is true, then men are responsible to a holy God. 

You are committed to the truth that you want to be true.  That is why any biblical answers are refused.   

Response to comment [from other]:  "Not everything posted at AIG is wrong. That's your bias showing, not mine."

You believe something that Answers in Genesis states?  Pray tell, what is that?

Response to comment [from an agnostic]:  "[Y]our claim that new information cannot be added..."

That is correct:  "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..."  Full text:  Is There Really a God?

If you believe you have facts that prove differently.  Please state them.   

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  [It takes more faith to believe in "molecules to man" evolution, than it does to believe God in the Bible.]  "Faith in what exactly?"

When you reject God, you believe man's next best guess.  That is faith--misplaced faith--but faith no less.  

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "I pointed out that there are vast throngs of Christians who believe that the Bible is God's word but that the creation story is not to be understood literally, all you can say is that those other Christians are evil and believe lies..."

People go to heaven or hell based on a right relationship with Jesus Christ (the true Jesus, not the Mormon Jesus who is tri-theistic, a created being, and the spirit-brother of Lucifer).  People do not go to heaven or hell based upon their belief about origins.

I do not call Christians (believers) evil.  I call false teachers (make-believers) evil.  As usual, being a false teacher, you are mixing truth with error (Ga 5:9).

[You sure work hard to undermine Christianity and the Bible. No surprise there (Eph. 4:14).]  "Ad hominem."

You could call scripture an hominem attack against false teachers.  So be it.   

"...your particular brand of Christianity..."

There are no brands of Christianity (Jn 14:6).  Christianity is a person, Jesus--not a cult or 'ism. 

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "I am looking for evidence for a 6,000 year old earth."

Start here.

See: 

Deflating "Millions of Years"

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "So far all I've seen is links to AiG..."

So far, I've only seen you attempt to undermine the word of God yet you claim to be a Christian.  Being that you do not have a biblical worldview, why do you call yourself a Christian?  You say you believe that Jesus is the Son of God but so what.  Even the demons believe that and they are going to hell (Jas 2:19).  What evidence can you give us that you are a Christian?

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "serpentdove, what are your educational qualifications? I'd like to know."

For what purpose? 

"You claim to be educated in the ToE, yet you seem to not be able to show that you grasp even a rudimentary understanding of it."

Who does not know this theory?   You would have to have lived under a rock to not have been exposed to the theory of evolution.  Education is not the problem.  Heart trouble is the problem.   

"Also your understanding of formal logic is superficial as evidenced by PaulMcNabb, PlastikBuddha and others."

So you say.  I'll take God's wisdom over worldly wisdom any day (1 Cor 1:25).

"I would really like to know what you have studied and where."

I am sure you would.  You are so generous in dialogue toward Christians.  I am sure you are dying for another pearl of our wisdom (Mt 7:6).  

"This is not an ad hominem attack on you. Maybe if we understand where you are coming from, we can collectively as a group work to help you gain an understanding of our viewpoint instead of dismissing you as being a willfully ignorant person."

Your sincerity is dripping into your trough. 

Response to comment [from a Mormon]:  "[T]here are vast amounts of data that are simple ignored by creationists..."

Creationists are lying about the empirical data?

"...creationist arguments are making no attempt to support a hypothesis that explains all the facts."

Creationists come up with theories every day just as secular scientists.  Why do you dismiss them?  Because they believe the Bible? 

"creationists are looking for evidence that supports a certain hypothesis..."

They are vindicated by what they observe in the natural world.

"...and not dealing with most of the evidence that contradicts the hypothesis."

Why don't you do a little research into who has bigger problems--the naturalistic evolutionist or the young earth creationist.

Like your cult, when error is laid next to truth, they appear the same (Ga 5:9).  Remember, Satan has no raw materials.  He must mimic reality.  With a little research and a lot of repenting (Mt 6:33), you will find that this theory of evolution is not even a good lie.

Response to comment [from an agnostic]:  "Science offers a way to test various interpretations against each other..."

You can thank a Bible-believing Christian for that, Francis Bacon.

"Your side is not practicing science..."

You keep saying the same thing.  Keep thinking.  I know you can get it. 

"...the kind of resistance you show to good science..."

Is science only "good" if it agrees with your godless worldview?  Keep thinking.  You can do it.

"...[I]t only took the church 400 years to forgive Galileo for being right. You're even slower than that."

When you say "the church" do you mean legalistic faiths or Bible-believing Christians?  The true bride of Christ is an organic body of believers worldwide.  Christ is the foundation not Rome (1Co 3:11; Eph 2:20; 1Pe 2:4,5).  Galileo was a Christian.  It is unlikely that those who persecuted him knew the Lord.

"The last inquisition period is known as the Roman Inquisition and it was established in 1542 when Pope Paul III established the Holy Office as the final court of appeals in all trials of heresy. This group was made up of cardinals and other officials whose task was to maintain and defend the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. This group played an important role in the Counter-Reformation, and it was also this body that condemned Galileo for “grave suspicion of heresy” and banned all of his works in 1633 for teaching that the sun was the center of the universe and that the earth rotated around it. In 1965 Pope Paul VI reorganized the Holy Office and renamed it as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it remains in effect today..."  Full text:  What Were the Inquisitions?

Meet "Ardi" Our 4.5. Million Year Old Ancestor