New Creation/Evolution Internet Radio Show Tonight 6pmPST/9pm EST

Join me tonight on my radio show where I will have two guests. The first will be Larry Wessels (See YouTube, Google Video) for the Creationist side, and a return of a prior caller who only goes by the name Puck representing the Evolution side. The link for the site is:http://www.nowlive.com/DeadManTalkingLogin. Add me as a friend. Participate in the chat room, and call in with your questions!Hope to see you then!Rich

Thank you for you kind comments.It's true. For some reason NowLive had problems allowing my first guest to speak, the Creationist. The second guest, the Evolutionist, never called in as far as I am aware.On a positive note, I will be having a very famous pro-Creation Debater, on very soon. I will announce WHO it is when we can establish a date/time.Admittedly, my show is still a bit rough and amateurish in it's delivery (I have no training in this medium other than the tech). However, it's getting better everytime. If I had enough additional material to replace my guests last time it could have been much better.Hope to see you guys there!Rich

I personally am actually starting to lean towards Young Earth because a) it's the most literal interpretation of the Bible and I think you have to go with that or risk allegorizing the entire book and b) I am starting to believe that there is enough room to doubt modern science's interpretation on this. This could be a show topic all it's own. I am going to have guests from a variety of perspectives though.I hope that you come, listen, and participate.Rich

Not even close. I would suggest that you give the show a listen and judge for yourself.

Well, please don't be nervous. I don't want there to be any reason for that. I'm not claiming to be able to forward the sum total of the knowledge which you've obtained through your many years of hard work. In fact, if anything I try to be pretty open about what I don't know. However, I do think that the Creation perspective is really not given fair treatment in the media or world in general. In fact, your comparison of my efforts to that of supporting genocide were about is bad as it can get, but a clear of example of what I'm talking about.So, as a good scientist (which you no doubt are) I would only ask that you without judgment until you've heard the show. If I actually only spout propaganda as you suggest then I would expect you cite such on this site (and please be specific), and I would be happy to address it.God bless you,RichEdited by DeadManTalking, : No reason given.

Thanks for the warning. It's my desire to have good, solid references for the info that is presented. I will not always succeed, but please feel free to comment. If I don't have a good source you will do me a favor by pointing it out. Then I will either drop or remove the point if it is unsupported, or find a better source that is solid.
It's not my desire to simply pull from Creationist sources (though they maybe very valid). I think the arguments will be strongest coming from existing (non Creationist sources) literature, etc. However, calling Creationist source entirely propaganda is also wrong. I think that Creationist research should be peer-reviewed same as any other. That will only force them to have iron clad research which helps their side, and/or force Evolutionists to confront the fact that not all Creationist research and/or claims are without merit. Everybody wins.
If I fail to check everything as well as I should please feel free to call me on it. It's not personal. I really want everything to be of highest quality. I believe God will stand up to anyone's scrutiny.

Don't worry I intend to. I believe the claim lack of "self-policing" is not entirely accurate though there may be some truth. For example, I believe that ICR (I may have wrong group here) shot down a gentleman who had some pretty convincing Noah's Ark artifacts, and Answers In Genesis (I believe, but memory fails me) has had some problems with some statements made with ICR (I think). Please don't quote me on the specific groups at this point, but I assure you that some policing is going on. Worse case you can consider me a police of sorts for the Creation side of the debate. I agree with you we should have a very high standard for our own sources. It will only add to our credibility. Well I hope that that statement isn't true, but if it is then consider me on the case. I can assure you that Jesus would be most displeased at such astounding lack of faith if this is true.Please allow me to address your question about the link a little later. Also lets not confuse "lies" with statements that you disagree with or don't like. I've run across a number or evolutionists who would flat accuse Creationists of deception when they actually was none. Just difference of opinion. Let's be fair on both sides shall we?Rich

You bring up an interesting point. Have scientists who do Creation related research given up on the system as it exists today? Or is it as you suggest that the research actually has no merit? There are some very bright people who are very well-educated on the Creationist side of the argument - one of whom I will have as a guest soon (he has already agreed) after I read his book.We DO know that Creationists are blackballed from Universities because universities use this as a litmus test as they do political views as well. I believe that this is again more example of unfair treatment of the Creationist view. This is why I don't think that Creation related research would even be allowed to pass the mail room at any journal.
It's clear that the affirmative action doesn't extend to political views, and certainly not to the Creationist view. I know that you'll suggest that you couldn't possibly have one person from every religious background be represented and that is somewhat fair to say. However, one should not be blackballed for their view. I would suggest that one's view of our origins don't have any practical effect on any subject - not medicine, engineering, biology, etc. meaning that there is no practical thing about how you live your life that will change as a result of our view of your origin (except perhaps your view of morality, eschatology, etc).I do presuppose that solid creationist research exists. You are right. I also presuppose that Creation happened, but I'm happy to so so. Time will tell. You are incorrect though that NO such evidence exists. As I have already said there are some VERY bright people on the Creationist side, and we have been demonized for long enough. I have read their writings, and you do not do them proper justice to suggest the contrary.In my view, since the Creation account comes from the Bible then if you can show that the Bible is accurate or inaccurate then you can by extension show the Creation is the same. Though many people have tried, and failed (yet claimed victory anyway) this has yet to be shown. In fact, just the opposite has been shown in my view. Therefore, I believe that evidence for the Biblical Flood also support s the Biblical Creation account.So, in my arguments you'll see me at times draw from the various other fields (as does Evolution) to support my overall claim that Creation best explains the facts as we see them. As Michael Schumer, the former Creationist, said in his book Darwin Matters. Evolution is supported by a convergence of evidence. It's my claim that Creation is best supported by a similar convergence of evidence.God bless you,Rich

I just wanted to drop in, and tell you all that am really appreciate all of your responses. I'm saddened to hear about the responses by some Creationists. Regarding that the only thing I can say is that we are all fallible (thus the need for peer review), and I hope that in some small way I can contribute to the reversing of those responses by some members of the Creationist community.I also wanted to say that it is clear that many of you have definitely done your homework as scientists, and made efforts to reach out to the Creationist community out of legitimate concern for your field and probably for the Creationist as well. I respect your efforts there, and here on this board. I intend to do proper justice by your efforts by giving them a little bit more time than I can at the moment in order to formulate a proper and honest response. While I am a Creationist I am NOT a knee-jerk one. That being said I will respond to all of the points made above since my last posting. I just want a bit more time to do so. I will do best to respond fully by tomorrow. However, I may have to bite it off a piece at a time due to my other tasks, errands, etc. Nonetheless, I will try to take them in order, and I look forward to your very well informed replies.Sincerely,Rich

New show tonight guys! Come and particpate won't you? We will be discussing the microbiological challenge to Evolution, and my initial thoughts on Dr. Walter Brown's book.you can find it at http://www.nowlive.com/DeadManTalking at 6pm PST.